(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Ethnoarchaeological study of stone scrapers among the Gamo people of southern Ethiopia"

AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF STONE SCRAPERS AMONG THE 
GAMO PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA 



By 

KATHRYN JANE WEEDMAN 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

2000 







Copyright 2000 

by 
Kathryn Weedman 















For my late grandfather, Chester Parmer Weedman, for believing in the eyes as wide as 
sunflowers. 



"Successful reality comes from Dreams, Hard Work, and Tenacious Character." 

C.P. Weedman (1913-1998) 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I am deeply grateful to the Gamo hide-workers of southern Ethiopia, who opened 
their lives and homes to me. Although they are submerged and silenced in their world, I 
hope that this work will give them a meaningful voice in the academic world. 

Special appreciation goes to members of my supervisory committee, who 
provided support and hours of intellectual discussion without which this work would not 
be as complete. Steve Brandt introduced me to the rich and diverse cultures of Ethiopia, 
and for that I will always be in his debt. He also sets an example of dedication and 
enthusiasm for his work and students to which I can only aspire. Peter Schmidt kept me 
on the path less traveled, by demonstrating the power of ethnoarchaeology through 
integrating people with their own history. I thank Anita Spring, an outstanding role 
model for women academicians, for her encouragement and unrelenting drive to achieve. 
Mike Moseley will always be remembered for advising me to go beyond my own goals 
and those of my mentors. Abe Goldman affirmed the interdisciplinary importance of 
seeking indigenous knowledge. Ken Sassaman has a contagious enthusiasm, which 
inspired me to keep writing. 

Heartfelt thanks go toward many people in Ethiopia without whose patience and 
help this project would not have been possible. Carlos Iori made logistical and 
bureaucratic life easier, giving my husband and I a sense of security in a foreign country. 
Berhano Wolde, Gezahegn Alemayehu, Getacho Girma, Paulos Dena, and Saleh were my 

iv 



translators, field assistants, and supportive friends. In addition, I appreciate the 
friendship of Tihun Mulushewa, Chunga Yohannes, Tesefaye Mekuria, Daniel Tadesse, 
and Nega. Calche Cara and his wife, Goonashay Dara, created a home for us in Doko. 
Father Denis and employees at the Chencha and Arba Minch Catholic Churches helped 
us with inevitable truck repairs. Dena Freeman shared a brief time with us in Doko and 
engaged me in tantalizing discussions concerning Gamo culture. Lagerhun and 
Workineh Hailemichael skillfully illustrated all the ethnographic stone tools I collected. 
Declan and Kate Conway and Ibrahim Labouts helped us to pass the time in Addis. I also 
thank John Fleagle for the use of his generator. 

I am indebted to my family and friends for nurturing and encouraging me through 
out my academic education. My husband, John Arthur, has endured the trying and 
sometimes lonely life of graduate school with me these last ten years. Yet, his love and 
faith in my goals and abilities has never wavered. My grandmother, Jane Grissel 
Branham, my mom, Janie Branham, my dad, Joe Weedman, my sister, Shellee Weedman, 
and my mother-in-law, Frances Arthur have been a continual source of support and love, 
and without them this path would never have emerged and matured. I thank Sergio 
Iruegas, Florie Bugarin, Matt Curtis, Jim Ellison, Girma Hundie, Birgitta Kimura, George 
Luer, Audax Mabulla, Agazi Negash, Fred Smith, Jonathan Waltz, Terry Weik, and 
Karen Weinstein for the intellectual debates that created skepticism and 
incomprehension, which only made me work harder. 

No manuscript is complete without maps and illustrations, which bear the brunt of 
communicating ideas succinctly. I am very thankful for Melanie Brandt, who has 












produced wonderful images combining her talent and creativeness with my rough field 
maps and lithic illustrations. 

This field research was funded by a National Science Foundation Dissertation 
Improvement Grant, Fulbright, and the Leakey Foundation. The writing of my 
dissertation was supported by the University of Florida's College of Liberal Arts and 
Sciences McLaughlin Dissertation Fellowship and the Ruth McQuown Scholarship. I 
extend my gratitude to Ethiopia's Ministry of Culture and Information's Center for 
Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH), the Southern Nations 
Nationalities and Peoples Regional Government (SNNRP) Bureau of Culture and 
Information, the Institute of Ethiopian Studies (IES), and the Herbarium at Addis Ababa 
University. I greatly appreciate the help of the following people for either allocating 
permission to conduct research and/or assisting with ethnoarchaeological research in 
Ethiopia: Jara Haile Mariam (CRCCH, director), Yonis Bayene (CRCCH, director of 
archaeology), Mulageta Belay (CRCCH, field representative), Tadale Tekiewe (CRCCH, 
field representative), Muluneh Gabre-Mariam (Director of the Ethiopian National 
Museum), Kebbede Geleta (CRCCH, maps/geographer), Yohannes Hadaya Kanate and 
Solomon Tesfy (Heads of SNNRP Bureau of Culture and Information, Awassa office), 
Filamon Hadro and Ababanu Agabebo (Heads of Bureau of Culture and Information, 
Arba Minch office), Zenebe Bonja Bonke (Chencha official), Dr. Abdul Samed (IES 
director), Taddese Bereso (IES assistant director), Adane Dinku (Department of Soil 
and Water Conservation, Chencha office), and Sebsebe Demissew and Melaku 
Wondafrosh (Addis Ababa Herbarium). 



VI 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

page 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv 

ABSTRACT x 

CHAPTERS 

1 THE STYLE AND FUNCTION DEBATE: THE MEANINGS BEHIND STONE 

TOOL VARIATION 1 

Style and Function Debate 5 

Style 5 

Function 8 

Previous Research of Ethiopian Hide Workers 14 

Descriptive Accounts 14 

Systematic Studies 16 

1992 and 1 995 Reconnissance 20 

Research Hypotheses 23 

Premise 25 

2 WHITE WASHING CULTURAL STAINS : RESOLUTION THROUGH 

ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS 28 

Ethnoarchaeology: History, Theory, and Stone Tools 28 

Speculation and Ambivalence 29 

Science 33 

Contextualied Studies 35 

A Scales of Analysis: Cultures as Heterogeneous and Polythetic 39 

Field Methodology 41 

Regional Survey 41 

Localized Village Studies 48 

Scraper Analyses 58 

Premise 55 

3 CONTEXTUALIZING STONE TOOL VARIABILITY: THE GAMO 

ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURE 67 

Evaluating Function: Environment, Resources, and Economy 68 

Evaluating Style: Social Organization 76 

Interethnic Group Relationships 77 

Intraethnic Social-Political Relationships 82 

Intraethnic Kinship Identities 99 

Discussion 1 1 6 

vu 



4 REGIONAL RESOURCE AVAILABILITY: THE AFFECT ON GAMO HIDE 

WORKING PRACTICES AND MATERIAL CULTURE 117 

Hide-Working Technology 118 

Stone Procurement and Production 118 

Hafting 126 

Hide Procurement 135 

Hide Scraping Process 136 

Scraper Morphology 139 

Unused (Oratay) and Used-up (Chima) 139 

Obsidian (Salloa) and Chert (Goshay) 143 

Scraping (Katacha) and Chopping (Coata) 145 

Hafting 147 

Lowland (Baso) and Highland (Geza) Hides 148 

Discussion 1 55 

5 ETHNIC, REGIONAL, AND POLITICAL-RITUAL UNITS (DERES) AMONG 

THE GAMO 162 

Interethnic Relationships 162 

Intraethnic Subregional Relationships 1 67 

Handles 167 

Scrapers and Site Formation 171 

Intraethnic Dere Relationships 183 

Handles 184 

Scrapers 189 

Discussion 1 95 



6 KINSHIP AND LOCAL GAMO rDENITITES 200 

Moieties: Handles and Scrapers 20 1 

Clans: Handles and Scrapers 205 

Lineages and Villages: Handles and Scrapers 212 

Discussion 22 1 

7 DOMESTIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 224 

Domestic Groups 224 

Household Spatial Arrangements 224 

Handles and Sockets 23 1 

Unused Scrapers 238 

Used-up Scrapers 247 

Individualism and Ideal Types 253 

Individuals 253 

Ideal Types 254 

Experience and Age 256 

Handedness 26 1 

Discussion 263 



vni 






8 EXPLORING MATERIAL VARIATION: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND 

REPRESENTATIONS IN THE LANDSCAPE 267 

Regional Relationships 268 

Socio-Economic Context and Resources 269 

Stone Tools 273 

Subregional 276 

Intervillage 283 

Household and Intravillage 285 

Significant Attributes and Scales of Analysis 288 

Future Directions in Lithic Ethnoarchaeology 293 

Craft Specialization 293 

Gender 294 

Archaeological Formation Processes 295 

Conclusion 300 

APPENDICES 

A KINSHIP CHARTS 301 

B ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA 311 

C STATISTICS AND HANDLE AND SCRAPER DATA 319 

D SCRAPER GRAPHS 370 

E GLOSSERY 388 

REFERENCES 390 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 417 



IX 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School 

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the 

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

AN ETHNO ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF STONE SCRAPERS AMONG THE 
GAMO PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA 

By 

Kathryn Jane Weedman 

May 2000 

Chairman: Steven A. Brandt 
Major Department: Anthropology 

A controversial and long-standing debate in archaeology is concerned with 
whether similarities and differences in stone tools represent style (marking the 
cultural identity of the maker) or function (indicating how stone tools were used). I 
spent two years among the Gamo hide-workers of southwestern Ethiopia conducting 
an ethnoarchaeological study of stone tool production and use, which addresses the 
tenets of the style and function debate. 

Ethnoarchaeology offers a position from which to explore the ideologies of 
living populations and how they invoke meaning into materials. A contextualized 
approach to ethnoarchaeology unmasks the heterogeneous nature of culture, 
revealing the necessary background information to infer the meanings behind 
material variation. My study of the Gamo hide-workers revealed that the local 
environment and available resources for stone tool production in association with 



their maker's social identities interface with geographic and cultural divisions in the 
landscape. Whether a region is culturally heterogeneous or homogeneous depends 
on the materials investigated and the scales at which they are examined. Hence, I 
studied the Gamo stone scrapers in terms of the emically important scales of analysis 
including regional/interethnic, subregional (north, central, south), political districts, 
moieties, clans, lineages, domestic groups, and the individual. 

My research suggests that exploring similarities and differences in terms of 
scales of analysis eliminates the necessity for a function and style division and 
emphasizes that both aspects exist within the material culture of a single ethnic 
group. It is my hope that pursuing studies such as these will help redefine the ways 
in which archaeologists make inferences about the past. 









XI 



CHAPTER 1 

THE STYLE AND FUNCTION DEBATE: 

THE MEANINGS BEHIND STONE TOOL VARIATION 



Humans and our hominid ancestors produced stone tools for over two million 
years and much of the prehistoric archaeological record consists solely of stone tools. 
Yet, we know very little about how stone tools are related to social identity or how 
they are manufactured, used, and discarded. Archaeologists concerned with 
broadening our understanding of stone tools in the ancient past have found studies of 
modern populations producing and using stone tools invaluable (e.g., Binford 1986; 
Gould et al. 1971; Hayden 1979; Tindale 1965; White et al. 1977). Currently, 
Ethiopia is one of those rare places in the world where people continue to make and 
use shaped flaked stone tools. In southern and central Ethiopia, specialized artisans 
manufacture stone end-scrapers for processing cow hides for leather products. The 
continued use of stone tools in present-day populations within southern Ethiopia offers 
unique opportunities to test a variety of hypotheses related to stone tool technology. It 
also exposes us to other voices and provides alternative inferences concerning material 
culture. 

The Gamo are one of the ethnic groups in southern Ethiopia who produce stone 
tools for the scraping of hides. They live in the highland and lowland regions to the 
immediate west of Lake Abaya (Figure 1-1). The Gamo share a social organization 
characterized by patri-clans, locally elected village leaders, and hereditary ritual- 

1 




LakeZwai 





Shashamane 
A Lake Awasa 



LakeAbaya 



N 



KM 



100 

— I 



Figure 1-1: Map locating the Gamo territory within the Rift Valley, Ethiopia, and 
Africa. 



3 
sacrificers. Artisans such as hide-workers, potters, and smiths are members of a 

submerged social-economic group separate from farmers and weavers. The hide- 
workers' low social status limits them to making their livelihoods from valueless 
resources such as stones and deceased animals. Stones cause land to be uncultivable 
and thus render it infertile. A severe insult to a Gamo woman is, "Give birth to 
stones!" The Gamo non-artisans believe that stones are worthless and bad. Yet, the 
hide-workers transform these infertile stones into effective tools to produce items used 
in everyday life including bedding, clothing, carrying bags, saddles, and chairs. 

It is remarkable that today people are continuing to make and use stone tools in 
a world where mechanized industries are expanding rapidly. The continued use of 
stone tools among the Gamo and other peoples in southern Ethiopia does not indicate 
a stagnant economic or social situation that we can draw on analogically to describe 
the past. To imagine that either a past or present society is bounded and ahistorical is 
a grave error. Rather the Gamo are a collage of social, political, and economic 
relationships, as is clearly depicted in imagery borrowed from Olmstead (1997): 

Imagine a wet sheet of paper to which watercolors are applied. Each spot of 
color spreads and mixes with contiguous colors and the boundaries between 
colors may not be very clear or consistent along the edges of a central color 
spot. Localized conditions on the page — slight ripple, extra water, a raised 
section — will affect just how far a color spreads and how much it mingles. 
...It is this shifting dance of color that I use as a central image when thinking 
of the thousands of years people have lived upon the surface now called 
Ethiopia. (26) 

The Gamo hide-workers are part of an intricate socio-economic network, 

which incorporates their families, village members, as well as integration into regional 

and national relationships. Yet, the Gamo and other southern Ethiopian hide-workers 

provide a unique opportunity to study a people who make and use stone tools in their 



4 
everyday lives. Although the Gamo represent a stratified society, we can draw on 

their knowledge to provide models for prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies. 

Ethnography can provide us with some basic patterns of behavior that may be different 

from those of western-trained archaeologists. It may open new areas of inquiry for 

researchers to explore in the archaeological record. It is essential that we take 

advantage of the activities pursued by the Gamo hide-workers to better understand the 

processes behind stone tool production, use, and discard in an effort to broaden our 

understanding of human behavior including but not limited to the evolution of craft 

specialization (Hayden 1990), the role of gender as an organizing feature of craft 

production (Casey 1998; Gero 1991; Sassaman 1992), and site formation processes 

(Hayden et al. 1996; Torrence 1986; Schiffer 1982). 

My research focuses on one of the most controversial and long-standing issues 

in archaeology, the style and function debate. Excluding the role of postdepositional 

agencies, a majority of archaeologists argue that style (marking the cultural identity of 

the maker) and/or function (indicating how stone tools were used) account for most of 

the variability in stone artifacts. The production and use of stone tools by the Gamo 

hide-workers offers an excellent opportunity to explore this long-standing issue 

concerning the meaning behind differences and similarities in stone tools and how 

they express human behavior. 






Style and Function Debate 
Style 

Stone tools have been recognized as products of human activity since the 
fifteenth century (Grayson 1983:5; Trigger 1989:52). However, it was not until the 
early twentieth century that archaeologists viewed differences in material culture as 
representative of difference in culture or ethnicity (Childe 1929, 1953; Kidder 1931; 
Kroeber 1916:7-21; Kroeber and Kluckholm 1952:365-376). Archaeologists 
hypothesized that synchronic similarities and differences in artifacts represented style. 
When artifacts were similar to one another, archaeologists felt that they represented 
people who shared the same culture, and artifacts different from one another indicated 
cultural differences (Krieger 1944; Wissler 1923:12-20, 47-63). 

French archaeologist Francois Bordes (1961, 1973, 1977) systematically 
designed the European Mousterian typology and was influenced by the paleontological 
paradigm, fossile directeur. Under this paradigm, when the patterns of material 
culture within geological schemes could not be explained in terms of organic 
evolution, researchers turned to behavioral expressions of biological differences 
among human groups as an explanation for variance (Sackett 1968). Bordes' (1961) 
interest in eliminating the concept that prehistoric people were "brutish half-men" led 
him to attribute variation among stone tools to style or cultural differences rather than 
to biological differences. Deetz (1967:44-52, 1968) clarified the latter point through 
his concept of a mental template. When producing a product the craftsperson forms in 
his or her mind a mental image or template that is bound by culture specific norms. 



6 
This normative/standard view of style holds that formal variation is diagnostic of 

ethnicity in chronological histories (time and space) (Sackett 1982a, 1982b). Culture 

was considered to be internally homogeneous and bounded (Jones 1996). 

Subsequently two interpretations of the meaning of style developed. Some 

researchers hypothesize that style actively represents an internal ethnic signaling or 

iconicism (Hodder 1977, 1982:204-21 1, and 1990; Larick 1985; Wiessner 1983, 1984 

1985; Wobst 1977). The craftsperson intentionally adds stylistic elements separately 

from the utilitarian elements of the artifact to identify actively the owner of the object. 

Wobst (1977) argues, in the era of processualist studies, that 

Learned behavior and symboling ability greatly increase the capacity of 
human operators to interact with their environment through the medium of 
artifacts. This capacity in turn allows human populations to respond more 
readily to environmental stress; it improves their ability to harness and process 
energy and matter; and it diversifies their options of information exchange. 
(320) 

The iconological approach maintains that artifact style represents a conscious 

intentional action on the part of the maker to produce an object that conforms with and 

represents his/her ethnic identity. Wiessner (1983) identified two types of active style, 

emblemic and assertive: 

emblemic formal variation in material culture has a distinct referent and 
transmits a clear message to a defined target population about conscious 
affiliation and identity... assertive style is formal variation in material culture 
which is personally based and which carries information supporting individual 
identity. (257) 

Hodder (1982:48-59) noted that identity might be expressed in mundane utilitarian 

items, such as stools, hearths, and spears, as well as in decorative items. He also 

importantly pointed out that there is no clear relationship between the degree of 

interaction and the material cultural patterning, but rather it "depends on the strategies 



7 
and intentions of the interaction groups and how they... negotiate material symbols" 

(Hodder 1982: 185). Iconic studies of styles in archaeology are based primarily on 

ethnoarchaeological studies of iron spear points and other types of nonlithic material 

culture. These ethnoarchaeological studies indicate that style reflects different levels 

of social group membership and practices including: ethnicity (Hodder 1977, 1982:37- 

56), internal age-grade status (Hodder 1982:77-82; Larick 1985), linguistic/dialect 

differences (Wiessner 1983, 1985), kinship descent systems (Hill 1970:69-72; 

Longacre 1964, 1970; Plog 1978, 1983), gender (Casey 1998; Gero 1991; Sassaman 

1992; Wadley 1989), and the individual (Wiessner 1983). Hence, the encoded 

symbolic message of style may not only represent ethnicity but other forms of group 

membership. Iconological style is something that the craftsperson adds separately 

from the function of an artifact, and once isolated style has emic significance and 

represents culture specific behavior. 

Others hypothesize that style is isochrestic or inherent in any material form 

because artisans unconsciously make specific and consistent choices based on options 

dictated by their culture (Close 1977:7-8, 1989; Sackett 1973, 1982a, 1985, 1986, 

1990). Style is learned and transmitted from one generation to the next within a 

restricted spatial and temporal context. The attributes of style are unconscious/passive 

but may still serve to identify ethnic groups and boundaries. The ethnic message of an 

artifact expressed in terms of variability may be actively interpreted, even if it was 

passively or unconsciously manufactured. This interpretation of variability is based, in 

part, on archaeological studies of stone tools by Close (1977, 1989) from the North 

African Epipaleolithic and by Sackett (1989) from Upper Paleolithic assemblages in 



8 
France. Close (1977:35-57) recognizes style through eliminating functional and 

technological vectors. For instance, she considers the nonfunctional attributes of style 

to include retouch variants, the types of retouch for backing, and the location of the 

working edge. Sackett's (1985) model of style argues that both style and function are 

simultaneously present in all artifact forms. The socially bound options dictate the 

creation of a form and wed function and style in every material manifestation. An 

example from Sackett (1990) clarifies this point: "a parrot-beaked flint burin is at once 

a chisel (function) and an object that is exclusively diagnostic of French Magdalenian 

VI industries (style)" (34). Sackett's (1985, 1989) approach to style advocates that it 

is a sum of the different components of the overall morphology of an object rather than 

individual attributes that identify style. Lemonnier (1992) criticizes this approach for 

lacking "references to the social representations of technology" (91). Sackett's 

isochrestic style does not explain why one material rather than another is chosen for 

representation nor how particular objects are related to others in the cultural system. 

Lemonnier's (1992:98) perspective suggests that it is not possible to segregate style 

and function because they are both parts of a culture's system of technology. 

Function 

Lewis Binford (1965, 1973, 1986, 1989, and with S. Binford 1966), using the 
concept of functional variability, challenged Bordes' and later Sackett's stylistic 
argument. Functionalists perceive synchronic similarities and differences in stone 
tools as representing the function of the tool (Ammerman and Feldman 1974; Binford 
1986 and 1989; Dunnell 1978; Mellars 1970). This method, however, was not deeply 



9 
ingrained into archaeological interpretation until the onset of processual archaeology. 

Early processualists strove to create a set of laws that accounted for cultural change, 

and they viewed human activities as repeating themselves in the same way over vast 

stretches of space and time. 

When archaeologists emphasize function and exclude style, they stress that tool 
morphology is the result of human activity and adaptive reactions to different 
environments. The function of an artifact is the role the object played as an instrument 
of activity. For instance, the variation in the Mousterian stone tool assemblage was 
interpreted in terms of toolkit clusters with variations representing differences in the 
activity being performed or differences in the way people were using a site (Binford 
1973). People manufactured artifacts and in turn used them in a succession of 
activities, which resulted in functional variation. 

Differences in raw material availability and access, as well as procurement 
strategies are cited as a source for lithic variability in the archaeological record 
(Luedtke 1976; McAnnay 1988; Odell 1981; Rule 1983; Shott 1989; Tankersley 
1990). Researchers traditionally contrast the direct access of resources by mobile 
people resulting in the curation of stone tools and the production of more formal tools, 
with an indirect procurement by sedentary peoples resulting in informal tools (Henry 
1989; Parry and Kelley 1987). Other archaeologists propose that technology is 
affected by not only the availability of raw materials and mobility, but also the 
availability of raw materials in conjunction with the: 1) quality of the material 
(Andresky 1994) and 2) the nature of the social relations (Hay den 1990; McAnnay 
1988). Andresky (1994) advocates that with direct access to high quality material 



10 
such as chert there is a tendency towards more formal tools which are resharpened and 

even given secondary uses, while poorer quality material tends to be used for less 
formal tools. Hayden (1990) suggests that environment in conjunction with social 
complexity is important for assessing scraper variability. Hayden argues that simple 
hunting/gathering societies in temperate or tropical climates have little social need for 
skin clothes and subsequently produce less formal scrapers made on locally available 
raw materials, and display poor or moderately developed usewear. In complex 
societies, garments become status-display items, resulting in economically based 
competition and the production of high-quality garments and other leather products. 
In these societies, one would predict the use of morphologically specialized hide- 
working tools made on carefully selected raw materials. The specialist would 
resharpen the tools many times, producing very pronounced evidence of use wear. 
Hide-workers would be selected specifically for the quality of their work, leading 
eventually to craft specialization and standardization in form. Yet, in other parts of 
the world, where complex societies produce specialized stone tools, researchers offer a 
slightly different scenario. They propose that a more standardized range of stone tools 
are found only for tools made for exchange, while stone tools produced for situational 
local use are less standardized (Arnold 1985; Cross 1990; Hughes 1990; Micheals 
1989; Shafer and Hester 1983). 

Reduction stages (i.e., use) are a common explanation for the source of 
functional variation in scraper morphology (Clark and Kurashina 1981; Dibble 1984, 
1987; Kuhn 1992). People discarded scrapers during different stages of their use, 
which is responsible for the variation in their length, thickness, and extent of retouch. 



11 

Rule and Evans (1985:213-214) suggest Paleo-Indian people only manufactured 
scrapers on specialized "keeled" flakes to produce a steep and durable working edge. 
While Kuhn (1992) offers that raw material access and core reduction methods 
determine the shape of tool blanks and subsequently scraper form. The source and 
function of spurs or projections on the distal end of the scrapers is currently debated. 
Many believe that spurs protect the hand above the haft or that they are the result of 
transverse snaps of the tool that was then converted into a hafted graver (Rogers 1986; 
Rule and Evans 1986; Wilmsen 1968). Others argue that spurs are a fortuitous result 
of resharpening (Clark and Kurashina 1981; Nissen and Dittemore 1974). 

In addition, archaeologists look to hafting to explain variations in the 
morphology of stone tools (Gould 1978; Keeley 1982). They associate lateral 
notching, crushing, thinning, and rounding of the proximal edge with the hafting of 
scrapers (Deacon and Deacon 1980:214; Hayden 1979:26-27; Keeley 1982; McNiven 
1994; Rule and Evans 1985). Researchers also propose that polish and crushing of 
dorsal ridges, as well as organized striature indicate socketed hafting (Beyries 1988; 
Shott 1995). Researchers propose that hafted tools are more likely to be smaller, 
thinner, narrower, and with more retouch than expedient hand held tools (Deacon and 
Deacon 1980; Keeley 1980:50). In addition, Odell (1994) argues that increasing 
sedentism allowed for increased demand on resources inducing technological responses 
such as hafting, which in turn led people to economize with curation and 
standardization in stone tool form. 

Experimental researchers determined to explain scraper variation through 
differences in associated activities have focused on type of raw material and 



12 
resharpening frequency (Brink 1978:97; Broadbent and Knutsson 1975), edge angle 

(Broadbent and Knutsson 1975; Wilmsen 1968), and edge wear and type of material 

scraped (Bamforth 1986; Hayden 1987; Hurcombe 1992; Keeley 1980; Shea 1987; 

Siegel 1984; Vaughan 1985). Central to the growing concentration of microwear 

studies is the debate over the chosen variables of analysis including abrasions, 

striations, scar definition, scar size, scar distribution, rounding, polishing, linear trends, 

crushing, shattering, frequency of microfracturing, and size of use fractures for 

delineating specific behavioral events. The uselife history of a tool may involve not 

only employment of the tool but also lateral recycling, curation, resharpening, and 

secondary recycling/reuse (Schiffer 1972, 1982). Distinguishing attributes that 

delineate the number of times a particular tool has been used, when it was used, and 

modifications to the tool during use provides potential insights into the importance and 

frequency of specific behavioral tasks (Shott 1995). For instances, stone tools may 

have greater use at some seasons of the year than others, they may be curated or 

manufactured in anticipation of use and transported between manufacture and use, or 

they may be recycled to undertake a different technological role. 

Ethnoarchaeological studies of stone tools have contributed largely to the 

functionalist perspective including studies in North America (Albright 1984; Pokotylo 

and Hanks 1989), Mexico (Clark 1991), Australia (Binford 1986; Gould 1968, 1980; 

Gould et al.1971; Hayden 1977, 1979; Tindale 1965), South Africa (Webley 1990), 

and Ethiopia (Clark and Kurashina 1981; Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b; Haaland 

1987: 66-69, 138-141). Several of these studies provided descriptive accounts relating 

procurement, production, use, and discard patterns (Albright 1984; Allchin 1957; 



13 
Webley 1990). Others focused on particular issues such as the relationship between 

curation and resource availability (Pokotylo and Hanks 1989) and patterns of disposal 

and extent of sedentism (Clark 1991). Studies in Australia concentrated on the 

correlation between form, edge wear, and use (Binford 1986; Gould 1968; Gould et al. 

1971; Hayden 1977, 1979; White, et al. 1977; White and Thomas 1972). For example, 

Binford (1986) studied the Alyawara of Australia process of making stone knives, in 

which each worker would carry the manufacturing process several steps and pass it on. 

Binford (1986) argued that the process by which the knives are made eliminates the 

ascription of stylistic significance: 

if members of a single social group produce formal variable assemblages of 
archaeological remains deposited at different locations, how can we use 
described differences among assemblages as unambiguous measures of 
differences in ethnic identity. (557-558) 

However, Binford did not compare knife forms between ethnic groups and so has no 

basis for determining ethnic representation in tool form. One of Hayden's (1979) goals 

was to study differences between technologies in Australia's Western Desert, 

comparing groups further south to those already studied in the north. Unfortunately, 

resettlement made original homeland association difficult to assess, and furthermore 

many of the individuals had not worked stone for 25-30 years. White and Thomas 

(1972) and White et al. (1977) briefly studied the concept of mental templates and 

stone tools among the Duna of Papua New Guinea. They compared the typologies of 

men from different parishes (political units) and determined that they used similar 

materials for similar functions, which created stone tool similarities. However, they 

also noted differences in tool form based on individual personality characteristics (e.g., 

larger men made larger tools). Hence, previous ethnoarchaeological studies of stone 



14 
tools clearly have contributed to a better understanding of stone tool distribution 

patterns, use, and production sequence, but provided little toward our understanding of 

style. 

The dichotomy between stylists and functionalists is a current and important 

ongoing debate in archaeology (Binford 1986, 1989; Chase 1991; Sackett 1989, 1990; 

Wiessner 1989, 1990). Ethnoarchaeologists concerned with the meaning behind stone 

tool variability primarily enter their research with the intent of studying function. My 

ethnoarchaeological study of the stone scrapers of the Gamo hide-workers serves as an 

avenue for testing hypotheses about prehistoric social patterns and for the 

understanding of symbolic and utilitarian technologies. 

Previous Research of Ethiopian Hide- Workers 

The tremendous variation of stone scraper forms, despite their seemingly 
similar function, in southern Ethiopia provides a unique situation for exploring the 
relationship between stone tool style and function through ethnoarchaeology. 

Descriptive Accounts 

The historical record recounts the presence of hide-working as early as the 
mid-eighteenth to nineteenth centuries in northern and central Ethiopia (Figure 1-2), in 
the regions of Shoa (Bartlett 1934:92; Insenberg and Krapf 1843:255-256; Merab 1929 
Johnston 1972 [1844]), Tigray (Bruce 1790; Combes and Tamisier 1838:77-79; 
Lefebvre 1846:240-243), Gondar (Wylde 1888:289-291), and Harar (Burton 
1894:170; Paulitschke 1888:31 1; Rey 1877:225). However, it was not until Johnston 



15 




miles 



Figure 1-2: Map locating the historically documented regions practicing hide-working 
in northern Ethiopia. 



16 
(1972 [1844]: 370-374) stayed in Shoa between 1841-1844 that we are provided with 

the first written account of stone tools associated with hide-working. Johnston stated 
that the hair and fat on a hide was removed by a rough stone. Giglioli (1889) 
published the first detailed description of the use of stone tools for hide-working in 
Ethiopia. He stated that the presence of stone tool use in Africa was rare, but that the 
Oromo and Gurage peoples of Ethiopia made and used obsidian scrapers for hide- 
working (Figure 1-3). The obsidian scrapers were inserted into either side of a 
wooden handle and fastened with resin (Giglioli 1889). This early article provides the 
first illustration of the handle and stone tools and demonstrates the historical depth of 
stone tool use for hide-scraping in Ethiopia. 

The presence of hide-working with stone tools in southern Ethiopia (Figure 1- 
3) later was reported and more specifically illustrated by German ethnographers 
studying the Dizi, Sidama, Gugi, and Gamo (Haberland 1981, 1993:94; Straube 
1963:22 plate.13) (Figure 1-3). Haberland (1981, 1993) reported that among the Dizi, 
the hide-workers use an obsidian blade that is fixed into the hollow of a wood-piece 
with dark-bees wax. The descriptions of the hide-working process in these texts are 
minimal but the illustrations demonstrate that there are a variety of handle forms 
produced by different ethnic groups. 

Systematic Studies 

Gallagher (1974, 1977a, 1977b) conducted the first systematic study on stone 
tool production and use among the Ethiopian hide-workers. The focus of the study 
was to determine if the modern hide processing workshops resembled two Later Stone 



17 



AiakeAwasa 




100 



Figure 1-3: Map of current ethnic groups with stone-tool using hide- workers in 
southern Ethiopia. 



18 
Age sites in the Gurage area of central Ethiopia. He concluded that there were no 

similarities between the types and distribution of stone tools and debitage in the 

ethnographic and archaeological record. His initial observation of stone scraper 

production and use was with two Gurage hide-workers of Dalacha, who use iron 

scrapers but in the past had used stone (Gallagher 1974). He (1977a, 1977b:214-31 1) 

later spent two months studying seven Gurage (in Dange-Lasho and Mafaed), three 

WolaytaTSidamo" (in Debo), and two Oromo hide-workers (in Dincho and Sire) 

(Figure 1-3). Gallagher (1977b) compared scrapers he collected from Gurage, Oromo, 

and Wolayta dumping pits and emphatically concluded: 

There is a very low degree of variability from individual to individual in terms 
of the manufacture and style of the stone tools and the process of their use. 
This is remarkable in that the artifacts are from three separate ethnic groups. 
(412) 

Gallagher concluded that there were no statistically significant differences in the 

frequency distribution of the debitage types and scrapers or in the metric dimensions 

of the scrapers and debitage between different ethnic groups. 

Clark and Kurashina (1981) subsequently studied an Oromo hide-worker from 

the Bale area of southeastern Ethiopia (Figure 1-3). They compared 30 used scrapers 

to 14 unused scrapers to determine traces of the behavioral patterns of use. 

Microscopic analysis enabled them to identify striations on the ventral side of used 

and discarded scrapers in a crisscross pattern, which reflect the rotating of the working 

edge during scraping. Most notably, they quantified a significant difference between 

the average working edge angle between unused (44 degrees) and used (57 degrees) 

hide scrapers. Furthermore, they demonstrated a size difference in the length of 

unused and used scrapers. Lastly, they plotted the distribution of obsidian within and 



19 
around a household, determining that there were virtually no lithics found in the living 

activity areas (workshop and household). Importantly, they demonstrated that 

archaeologists could easily misidentify midden deposits as activity areas, instead of 

locations of secondary discard. 

Haaland (1987:66-69, 138-141) studied a Wolayta (Figure 1-3) hide-worker in 
Soddo of southern Ethiopia. She compared the microwear edge damage and discard 
distribution of ethnographic obsidian to Neolithic rhyolite and basalt scrapers from 
Sudan. She noted the presence of crushing and microscarring on the working edge on 
both the ethnographic and archaeological scrapers. From this study, she ascribed hide- 
working activities to the Neolithic assemblages. 

In all these studies of the Gurage, Oromo, and Wolayta hide-workers 
(Gallagher 1974, 1977a, 1977b:214-31 1; Clark and Kurashina 1981; Haaland 1987:66- 
69), the researchers reported the same basic pattern of tool manufacture, use, discard, 
style, and function, summarized as follows. The exclusively male hide-worker 
acquires obsidian (reportedly the only stone raw material used, although glass was also 
used) from either a middleman in the form of "roughed out blanks" or directly from 
one or more quarries. The manufacture of the scrapers occurs either within the 
artisan's house or directly adjacent to it. The hide-worker uses direct percussion, with 
an iron bar or ax as a hammer, to strike flakes from a core. The manufacture of the 
tools occurs over a leather skin laid on the ground, a basket, or a wooden bowl. The 
hide-worker or his wife collects the debitage and throws it into a pit or specific trash 
area located behind the house or outside the compound. The flakes are made into a 
single tool type: unifacial convex end scrapers. One scraper is selected and inserted 



20 
into a carved-out socket on the right side of a two-sided wooden handle. Another 

scraper is inserted on the left side. The scrapers are secured in the haft with resin. The 
hide to be scraped is stretched out on a vertical wooden frame situated outside the 
house but inside the compound. Holding the handle with both hands and with one 
scraper-socketed side against the softened hide, the hide-worker scrapes off long 
shavings of the skin from the fatty, inner side of the hide. Periodically the hide-worker 
resharpens the end of the scraper with an iron hammerstone, and/or turns the handle to 
the other scraper-mounted side and continues scraping. Clark and Kurashina 
(1981 : 306) estimate that the hide-scraping process takes 8-10 hours, by which time 
both mounted scrapers are worn out. Gallagher (1977a:41 1) and Haaland (1987:69) 
indicate that the process takes six hours in which time four scrapers are exhausted. 
These studies of the hide-workers report little if any variability in the hide- 
working processes, especially in the shape or size of the handle nor the general shape 
of the scrapers. The researchers clearly took a functionalist perspective, contributing 
to our knowledge of procurement, production, use, discard, and edge-wear. However, 
there was little emphasis on reconstructing the social organization or history of the 
hide-workers and only one attempt (with a very small sample size) to determine 
aspects of style by considering variation among and between different ethnic groups. 

1992 and 1995 Reconnaissance 

In January and February of 1992, during a reconnaissance of southern Ethiopia 
in search of evidence for the origin and evolution of enset (Ensete ventricosum) food 
production, Steven Brandt briefly visited the Gamo, Wolayta, and Konso peoples 



21 
(Figure 1-3). Brandt observed the continued use of stone tools among these people for 

scraping hides. 

During May and June of 1995, 1 accompanied Dr. Brandt to Ethiopia to 
conduct an intensive survey of hide-workers in southern Ethiopia. A Wenner-Gren 
grant supported this study to gain a better understanding of the geographical and ethnic 
distributions of hide-working in preparation for future in-depth studies. This project 
confirmed the continued use of stone tools for hide-working among the Gamo, 
Gurage, Hadiya, Konso, Sidama, and Wolayta peoples (Brandt 1996; Brandt et al. 
1996; Brandt and Weedman 1997) (Figure 1-3). It also revealed a great diversity in 
hide-working practices concerning handle and scraper form, gender, and technology. 

Previous studies of the hide-workers indicated the use of one handle type with 
two scrapers secured with mastic into sockets on either side of the handle. We 
discerned the use of three different handle types (see illustrations on Figure 1-3) in 
southern Ethiopia: 1) double-hafted mastic handles among the Cushitic Sidama, 
Cushitic Hadiya, Ethio-Semitic Gurage, Omotic Wolayta, and the Omotic Gamo; 2) 
single-hafted mastic handles used among the Cushitic Konso; and 3) single-hafted 
nonmastic handles used by the Omotic Gamo (Brandt 1996; Brandt et al. 1996). We 
also discovered that the hide-workers used other types of stone materials besides 
obsidian. The Gamo use chert scrapers and the Konso use quartz scrapers. Unlike 
earlier studies in which men exclusively worked as hide-workers, it was clear that 
among the Konso and Wolayta, women independently manufactured and used stone 
tools for hide-working. In addition, the Konso hide-workers used completely different 
techniques for tool manufacture. Using a large round stone as her hammer, the hide- 



22 
worker uses the bipolar technique (rather than direct percussion) to break locally 

available quartz pebbles against a flat stone. She selects small flakes and through 
direct percussion shapes them into small narrow-nosed end scrapers. Finally, we also 
recorded differences in the deposition of debitage. The Gamo allowed debitage waste 
and retouch to remain on the ground where it fell during use, while the Konso 
collected these materials and dumped them outside the village. 

An examination of the handle, socket, and scraper morphological 
measurements reflected the geographical relationship between the six ethnic groups, 
especially when viewing the relationship between the unused scrapers (Brandt et al. 
1996). The length of the scrapers compared between ethnic groups also indicates the 
importance of material type, such that shorter scrapers were made of chert and longer 
ones of obsidian (Brandt and Weedman 2000). Hence, hide-working material culture 
suggests that although each ethnic group uses material culture to maintain their own 
social identity, available material resources also may influence scraper morphology. 
Shared historical processes, in terms of conquest by northern twelfth to sixteenth 
century feudalistic societies of southern Ethiopia, may account for similarities and 
differences expressed by the material culture associated with southern Ethiopian hide- 
working practices and material culture. However, more detailed ethnographic, oral 
history, and archaeological studies of crafts people from individual ethnic groups 
needs to be conducted before we can more definitely describe their origins and explain 
the process of their social position within Ethiopian societies. 



23 
Research Hypotheses 

This study is the first since the 1996 survey to concentrate on southern Ethiopia 
hide-working with stone tools. I selected the Gamo hide-workers as the focus of my 
research concerning the role of group membership (style) and environment (function) 
in material culture because of the great variability I witnessed in their hide processing 
practices and material culture. As discovered in the 1995 survey, the Gamo are unique 
in southern Ethiopia for their use of two different handle types, the zucano (double- 
hafted mastic handle) and the tutuma (single-hafted nonmastic handle) (see Figure 1- 
3), which seemingly are used for the exact same function, i.e., to scrape cattle hides for 
bedding. The use of two handle types within a single ethnic group indicates that there 
are a variety of methods used for achieving the same ends. This study of the Gamo 
hide-workers offers tremendous potential for exploring intracultural rules that govern 
technological strategies and provides an excellent opportunity to test multiple 
hypotheses concerning the nature of similarities and differences in stone tools. 

I test the hypothesis that the function of a stone tool rather than style accounts 
for most of the synchronic variability. In this scenario, the formal variation in Gamo 
scrapers should have no significant variation among hide-workers who engage in the 
same hide-working process. The variation in the scrapers will only differ when there 
are differences in activity such as the use of different types of raw material for 
scraping (chert and obsidian), differences in distance to resources, scraping a different 
type of hide (highland and lowland cattle hides), the scraping of a hide for different 
products (bedding verses saddle), the length of a scraper's uselife (1 or more hides), 



24 
and the use of scrapers for different types of scraping activities (shaving verses 

chopping). 

I also test whether style accounts for the variability witnessed in the synchronic 
appearance of stone tools that are functionally similar. There are a variety of ways to 
produce an object that will serve the same function. The selection of an object and its 
form is a matter of choice, determined ultimately by learning in a social context. If 
this is true, there should be a statistically significant correlation between Gamo group 
membership (lineage, clan, political district, and ethnicity) and geographical location 
and the similarities and differences in stone tools and their handle/haft type. 

In addition, I will determine if Gamo stone tools represent iconic or isochrestic 
style. Iconic style represents a conscious active effort on the part of the maker to 
represent his/her social identity (iconological or emblemic style). In contrast, with 
isochrestic style the identity message of a stone tool may be actively interpreted even 
if it is unconsciously manufactured. If style is iconic in Gamo scrapers, then the hide- 
workers should be able to sort an assemblage of modern Gamo scrapers and identify 
their own scrapers, those belonging to other members of their social groupings, and 
identify those that are different. Gamo hide-workers should also have a conscious 
mental template of what their scrapers will look like with the intention of making them 
different from hide-workers in other social groups, in order to present self or group 
identity. However, if style is isochrestic, the Gamo hide- workers should not have a 
conscious mental template of what their scrapers will look like nor will they 
intentionally make them different from hide- workers in other social groups. They may 
attribute the morphology of the scraper to tradition, to the way their ancestors made 



25 
them, or to fitting into a specific haft. Each Gamo hide-worker should only be able to 

discern scrapers that are different and belong to individuals who belong to other social 

groups. 

Finally, I test if the attributes of style are distinct and separate from attributes 

of function. In assigning their emic typologies to the scrapers, hide-workers should be 

able to assign independent attributes to the tools, which indicate either social identity 

or function. An attribute analysis of the tools also should demonstrate a statistically 

significant correlation between specific attributes of the tool that vary independently 

with either social or functional context. 

Premise 

This research project is a necessary step in understanding ubiquitous materials 
in the archaeological record, stone tools. The Gamo hide-workers are one of the few 
peoples to continue to make and use stone tools. They live in a diverse geographical 
(highland and lowland) and social environment (both intra and interethnic 
relationships), which is potentially reflected in their practices relating to stone tools. 
Hence, they provide a rich context for interpreting how group membership (style) and 
function are related to similarities and differences in the morphology of stone tools. 
Exploring the functional and stylistic elements of the meanings of stone artifacts 
among people who produce and use them today has the potential to reveal the 
harmony and tension in past societies and a better understanding of past social 
systems. 



26 
My two-year ethnoarchaeological study of the Gamo hide-workers revealed 

that the local environment and available resources for stone tool production in 

association with their makers' social identities interfaced with geographic and cultural 

divisions in the landscape. The following chapters will demonstrate that by exploring 

similarities and differences in terms of scales of analysis eliminates the necessity for a 

function and style division and emphasizes that because culture is heterogeneous both 

aspects exist within the material culture of a single ethnic group. Chapter 2 outlines 

my theoretical and methodological approaches to determining the origin of variation in 

the Gamo stone scrapers. Chapter 3 provides a description of Gamo culture and the 

social, economic, and political position of hide-workers. Chapter 4 describes the 

Gamo hide-working practices and access to resources at the regional/ethnic group 

scale within the western highland-lowland region of Lake Abaya and Chamo. It 

examines the Gamo hide-working process and the subsequent functional scraper 

variation that might arise as the result of differences in activities related to access to 

resources. The subsequent chapters explore scraper variation in terms of style and its 

association with Gamo political and social relationships. Chapter 5 compares the 

Gamo hide-working practices and materials with other southern Ethiopian ethnic 

groups, especially Omotic groups. It also analyzes Gamo hide-working materials and 

practices on an intracultural macroscale in terms of subregions (north, central, and 

south) and districts (deres). Chapter 6 demonstrates the reflection of moiety, clan, 

and lineage membership in scraper morphology and the distribution between village 

(guta) contexts. Chapter 7 illustrates the expression of domestic groups, age, 

experience, handedness, and individuality in scraper morphology and scraper 



27 
intravillage and household distributions. Lastly, Chapter 8 summarizes the results and 

provides an outline for future directions in the ethnoarchaeological studies of stone 

tools. 



CHAPTER 2 

WHITE WASHING CULTURAL STAINS: 

RESOLUTION THROUGH ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL METHODS 



In the last chapter, I discussed Olmstead's (1997) description of southern 
Ethiopian cultures as watercolors, where the cultural colors fade into one another and 
even make new colors. It is has taken a long time for archaeologists to discover the 
heterogeneous nature of culture—to avoid white washing a culture's great variety of 
colors into one homogeneously defined unit through material similarities. One 
method that can extradite archaeologists from the concept of a monothetic culture is 
ethnoarchaeology. Ethnoarchaeology has the potential to expose us to other voices 
and provide a starting point for trying to understand alternative inferences concerning 
material culture. Hence, this ethnoarchaeological study of the Gamo hide-workers 
concentrates on an emic understanding of social, economic, and political relationships 
and how they are reflected in the morphology and distribution of stone scrapers 
across the landscape. 

Ethnoarchaeology: History, Theory, and Stone Tools 

Most archaeologists interpret variation in stone tool assemblages through 
either inference or experiment (Crabtree 1975; Frison 1989; Ingersoll, Yellen and 
MacDonald 1977; Young and Bonnichsen 1985). However, the use of these 
methodologies brings into question the validity of our own ethnocentric 

28 



29 
interpretations of the past. Ethnoarchaeology offers us the opportunity to shed 

preconceived notions and ideological constraints that lock us in ethnocentric 

interpretations of the past. The danger in using ethnoarchaeology is for the 

archaeologist to apply blindly the present on the past and in the process deny both the 

ethnographic study group and the prehistoric people their individual histories. The 

interpretation of the past has always been based on our understanding of present 

societies. The use of inference as the mainstay of archaeological reasoning is 

examined in its historical context as it transforms from under the guise of speculation 

to science. Subsequently, I discuss how our inferential methodology has affected 

those whose prehistory and history we study, and the interpretations we make about 

them. 

Speculation and Ambivalence 

During the colonial era, westerners began recording the presence of stone tool 
production and use in the Americas, Australia, and Africa (Aiston 1929, 1930; Dale 
1870; Dunn 1879-80; Hahn 1870; Hambly 1936:49; Giglioli 1889; Mossop 1935:179; 
Mountford 1941; Murdoch 1988 (1892):294-301; E. Nelson 1899:1 12-1 18; N. Nelson 
1916; Roth 1899:145-152; Spencer and Gillen 1927:536-550). Since the day when 
objects were recognized as products of past human activities, we have been engaged 
in a process of analogy. The choice of using the pronoun "we" is crucial for it puts 
into context the cradling and nurturing of the discipline of archaeology within the 
western world (Orme 1981:2-16; Robertshaw 1990; Trigger 1989). The earliest 
framework for understanding ancient objects is often referred to as the Speculative 



30 
Period because it involved the interpretation of archaeological material culture 

through speculation. Initially the western world believed that stone tools were the 

result of supernatural origins such as thunderbolts and elves (Heizer 1962:63). 

However, subsequent colonial expansion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 

exposed Europe to knowledge of cultures outside its own domain. Ancient objects 

were recognized as evidence of past cultures based on their similarities with the 

material culture of other cultures, who were thought to have lost their "technology 

and civilized ways" because they did not follow Christianity (Trigger 1989:52). In 

the sixteenth century, Pietro Martire d'Anghiera first raised the possibility that in the 

past European people had used stone tools and did not know how to use metal 

(Hodgen 1964:371). 

Despite the growing realization concerning the prehistory and changes in 

European society, speculations about the past in Africa, Asia, and the Americas 

rendered them stagnant societies. During the height of western European exploration 

and colonization, there was a reluctance to attribute native peoples with 

archaeological sites. Antiquarians believed that European, Near Eastern people, and 

lost tribes such as the Moundbuilders stimulated the development of the earliest 

civilizations in the colonies (Atwater 1920; Bent 1893; Frobenius 1913; Hall 1905; 

Morgan 1876; Priest 1833; Stow 1905). Antiquarians used European stone tool 

terminology to describe African stone tools, and they claimed a movement of tool 

form and function from the north (Europe) to the south (Africa) (Dale 1870; Gooch 

1881). By concentrating on stone tool studies across the continent, antiquarians 

promoted the European ideology of a backward and "primitive" Africa that 



31 
represented a living example of Europe's past (Trigger 1989:52). The Americas were 

simply denied any evidence of a Paleolithic culture and the stone tools present in 

early deposits were associated with either foreigners or were considered misstratified 

and belonging to early Native Americans (Holmes 1914; Thomas 1898). This 

ensured not only a stagnant past for the Americas but also portrayed Native 

Americans in an unfavorable light as primitive and biologically inferior. 

Unlike in Africa and Asia, where colonies were still dominated by indigenous 

people, by the late nineteenth century the Native American populations had dwindled 

to the extent that colonialists no longer felt threatened. This probably led to earlier 

recognition concerning their relationships to archaeological finds of complex 

societies. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, American 

archaeologists began to associate Native Americans with significant and complex 

archaeological finds. Jesse Walter Fewkes (1900:579) was the first to use the term 

"ethno-archaeologist" in his study of Hopi Pueblos. Fewkes stated (1900), 

The main types of pueblo ruins have been described, and what is now 
necessary is a study of the manners and customs of the people who once 
inhabited them. This work implies an intimate knowledge of the ethnology of 
the survivors, and a determination of the survivor's identity may be had from 
migration legends of clans now living in the pueblos. . . . There remains much 
material on the migrations of Hopi clans yet to be gathered, and the 
identification by archeologic methods of many sites of ancient habitations is 
yet to be made. This work, however, can best be done under guidance of the 
Indians by an ethno-archaeologist, who can bring as a preparation for his work 
an intimate knowledge of the present life of the Hopi villagers. (578-589) 

Although he and other archeologists such as Cushing (1886) allowed for a connection 

between prehistoric and modern populations of Native Americans, they also 

maintained the idea that change had been minimal and hence, ethnoarchaeology was 

deemed an appropriate source of inference. 



32 
By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many studies of present 

day societies, who still used stone tools, were correlated directly with archaeological 

remains (Allchin 1957; Elkin 1948; Murdoch 1892:294-301; Nelson 1899:112-118; 

Stow 1905:62). Archaeological interpretation reached a crux in which analogy was 

indispensable and yet methodologically unsound because of its speculative nature. 

Kluckholm (1939) chastised archaeologists for their failure to examine the 

assumptions that underlie their methodologies. 

Our techniques of observing and recording are admittedly still susceptible of 
improvement, but they seem much further advanced than our development of 
symbols (verbal and otherwise) by which we could communicate to each other 
(without loss or inflation of content) the signs and symptoms we observe. 
(338) 

Thompson (1956) felt that archaeological inferences were inherently subjective on 

two accounts: 1) in formulating the hypothesis and 2) in the selection of ethnographic 

analogs. I would add that typological inference of this period seldom considered 

formation processes, failed to explain how two different archaeologists could produce 

different typologies for the same material, and failed to regard the complicating 

features of culture which make them unique and discernible from one another. 

Ascher (1961) suggested that to rectify the problems archaeologists should use 

ethnographic comparison only where actual historical ties existed. The danger with 

the direct historical approach is that it is like uniformitarianism, as the researcher 

forgets the differences and neglects to account for the similarities. J. G. D. Clark 

(1953) added that we must tie historical connections with ecological-economic 

similarities because history may contain great changes that profoundly alter the 

economy of the descendant's culture. Hawkes (1954) suggested that there is a ladder 



33 
of inference indicating that the natural science basis for the reconstruction of 

technology is a more reliable inference than those related to the economic, 

subsistence, political, and social spheres. Wylie (1985) deemed this era "Chronic 

Ambivalence" because archaeologists drew a line forcing themselves to choose 

between faulty methodology (analogy) or no methodology at all. 

Science 

Beginning in the 1960s, ethnoarchaeological studies correlated differences and 
similarities in stone tools with the tasks they perform and/or their stage of use in the 
life cycle (Albright 1984:50-59; Binford 1986; Clark and Kurashina 1981; Gallagher 
1974, 1977a, 1977b: 224-299; Gould 1968, 1977; Gould et al. 1971; Hayden 1977; 
Nissen and Dittemore 1974; Tindale 1965). Processual archaeologists of the time 
were dedicated to positivism and enacting proper scientific research programs, which 
was assumed to eliminate any speculation concerning reconstructions of the past. In 
the search to create cross-cultural laws, that would span time and space, the focus was 
on how humans adapt to their environment. At this same time, however, Binford 
(1962) insisted on an archaeology that was based in anthropology because both were 
"striving to explicate and explain the total range of physical and cultural similarities 
and differences characteristic of the entire spatial-temporal span of man's existence" 
(217). He rejected Hawkes (1954) concept of an inferential ladder, but believed that 
all aspects of the past are equally accessible. In his search for the dynamic, he turned 
to ethnographic and actualistic studies of modern material culture (Binford 1967, 
1978, 1981, 1989). He argued that archaeologists should use analogical considerations 



34 
to formulate a hypothesis, but not to consider them in the evaluative interpretive 

conclusions, when tested and placed in the archaeological context (Binford 1967). 

This is dangerous, because Binford did not consider the contextual (spatial and 

temporal) differences and similarities between his ethnoarchaeology and 

archaeological data, which may raise new insights for changes across time and space. 

For Binford, culture is a complex system that consists of the interaction 

between people and the environment that cannot be relegated only to ideas. Only 

functional variability straddles between people and their environment and only a 

functionalist perspective can use a scientific approach and adequately deal with the 

explanation of cultural process (Binford 1965). Gould (1980:32-33, 1990:26-29) 

objected to Binford's generalized laws of culture, because he believed they lacked 

explanation of how or why there are correlations through time. This is why he stated 

that humans are constrained by the natural environment (which provides the answers 

of how and why for correlations) and in turn have certain determinate adaptive 

options open to them in given environments (Gould 1980:48-53). Gould stated that 

anomalies are the tools used for discovering behavioral relationships and are due to 

culture or ideational aspects that are inaccessible through general laws. However, 

Watson (Gould and Watson 1982) pointed out that Gould has more in common with 

Binford than he would like to admit simply because both use analogy to generate 

hypothesis about uniformities that may hold over time and across culture. Watson 

(Gould and Watson 1 982) argued that uniformitarianism denies the presence of site 

formation and the restrictions of archaeological sampling in its reconstruction of the 



35 
past. Despite the rhetoric of an anthropological archaeology, processual 

archaeologists such as Binford and Gould ignored social and historical context. 

The concept that science is the means through which archaeologists infer 

information about the past is now deeply embedded in the discipline. New 

archaeology ironically neglected context and it neglected history while at the same 

time trying to recover it. The science of archaeology has been criticized within the 

discipline by post-processual archaeologists for its inability to take on a worldview 

and to recognize its limitations for understanding human culture, which is not natural 

and thus not applicable to the natural science approach and as such ignores the inner 

factors of human behavior (Gardin 1992). Science is embedded in an ideology that is 

alienating because it advocates the presence of objectivity and one truth, when in fact 

truth is ideologically informed (Hodder 1989, 1991; Schmidt and Patterson 1995; 

Tilley 1993; Wylie 1993). 

Contextualized Studies 

An alternative to the processualist's view of ethnoarchaeology can be found in 

a contextual approach to ethnoarchaeology. The basis for the contextual 

interpretations of materials originated in the work of Taylor (1948). His 

insightfulness labeled the work of his contemporaries as comparative or taxonomic 

because it tended to describe archaeological data in simple reference to ethnographic 

data. Taylor (1948) emphasized the importance of context: 

therefore, what is necessary is that we compare not individual items either 
separately or in groups, but rather cultural contexts and/or broad cultural 
complexes as wholes. But when items are taken in conjunction with, and in 
relation to their cultural matrix, they may be expected and indeed are found, to 



36 

show differences that are locally and comparatively significant. A 
determination of the meaning of these differences is not always possible, 
immediately or ultimately, but this is no reason for their neglect. (169) 

In essence, he believed archaeologists of his era tended to compare two cultural 

entities to each other whose relationships lay outside one another and thus was devoid 

of context. Taylor (1948:171) advocated that archaeologists should look at 

ethnographic information as a model from which to draw ideas about the types of 

questions we ask of the material remains, and in the construction of an ethnography 

of the past. Although more recent theory points to the importance of contexts, 

unfortunately Taylor's work was largely shunned at the time because it so heavily 

criticized several leading archaeologists. 

Archaeologists who have attempted to take a conjunctive approach examining 

history and context and incorporating human ideas are accused of pure speculation 

(Binford 1962; Dunnell 1978; Leach 1973). Ironically, it is this context that 

functionalists ignore, which allows ethnoarchaeology to be scientific rather than 

speculative (Taylor 1948; Wylie 1982). The context of the material remains provides 

the background knowledge for informed plausible explanations. Scientific 

knowledge is not limited to observable data and furthermore the theoretical context 

color the facts (Wylie 1982, 1985). Contextual models are not speculative because 

they are constrained by the material record left by the past and because we base 

plausible explanations on informed analysis of how they could have been generated. 

Giddens (1979:242-245) similarly stated that all laws operate within a boundary and 

that we can only rationalize action in its context, as history dictates. Archaeologists 

test the relationships they posit through a variety of mediums/contexts including the 






37 
ethnographic present, historic documents, oral history, and archaeological material 

culture (Schmidt 1983, 1997:27-28). If we examine the differences as well as the 

similarities in different contexts (social, environmental, space, object, and text), it will 

have the effect of expanding rather than reducing culture and people to a set of 

unchanging rules (Hodder 1982:217-220). 

By focusing on a contextual study of the past and present, we avoid the 
inherent contradiction of creating ladders to reach closer to the perfect analogy. As 
Wylie (1982) states, "an analogy is by its nature a similarity between things that are 
unalike in other respects, a perfect analogy is a contradiction in terms" (395). If there 
were no dissimilarities, then we would have identity rather than analogy. Since 
change is a constant factor in society, the differences are as important as the 
similarities when we are comparing aspects of culture through time and across space 
(Schmidt 1985; Wylie 1985). The use of universal laws displaces the variability in 
material phenomena (Murray and Walker 1988). The differences or the anomalies 
are just as important because they identify the process of culture change. 

Furthermore, by ignoring context, Schmidt (1985, 1997:28-30) points out that 
archaeologists are actually engaged in metonymy because they mix past and present 
domains. Metonymy differs from analogy, such that in analogy two separate domains 
share some (not all) similar attributes, but in metonymy there is the actual mixing of 
domains so that one object is referred to as another. Archaeologists use artifacts 
(parts) to understand past culture (whole), we ascribe names to the artifacts that imply 
an unspoken meaning such as scraper or point, and we describe the past as we see it 
in the present (mixing two separate domains). This transformation has occurred not 



38 
only with respect to how we understand the past, but how we represent ourselves 

within our discipline and towards others. 

The terms and phrases we ascribe to material culture are contextualized within 

a current understanding of materials and technologies of societies in the present 

world. Schmidt (1985) offers that not only have we transformed the past through our 

own choices of inference, but that we have misnamed it analogy to mask its real 

power. Orme ( 1 98 1 : 1 1 - 1 3) argues that by the 1 8th century, Europeans equated 

prehistoric with modern "primitive" societies. When coupled with evolutionary 

paradigms, archaeological interpretations relegate the social positions of people 

outside the western world as inferior. Similar explanations are recurrent in today's 

discussions of nonwestern peoples, such as Lee's (1979:1-2) description of Inuit, 

Australian, and Kalahari hunting and gathering peoples, which strips them of history 

by focusing only on their environmental adaptations and functional aspects of their 

material culture. The trajectory of archaeological reasoning must not only be viewed 

in terms of how we transform the past from present knowledge and past material 

culture, but how we also affect the present with our interpretations. Wilmsen (1989) 

proclaimed that "ethnographic practice thus provides empirical support for the 

theoretical justification of ideologies that tolerate, while claiming not to advocate 

segregation of that 'other' world" (xiii). Archaeologists do no less when they speak 

about the past. The words and symbols we choose reflect symboling and the ritual 

justification of power over the other (Schmidt 1985). How we construct history and 

prehistory goes beyond misnaming metonymy as analogy, it demonstrates an ability 

in ourselves to cover up the issue of how we construct and transform speculation into 



39 

science and the bipolarity found within the latter (Schmidt 1985). A view of the past 

through the eyes of others is something that is just beginning to foster an interest in 
our discipline. 

A contextual approach to ethnoarchaeology allows us to explore the 
ideologies of living populations and how they invoke meaning into materials. It helps 
us to focus on both the similarities and differences in time and space, which 
ultimately explain the variations we see in archaeological materials. Ultimately it 
will lead us to better understanding of the environmental and cultural factors that 
affect material culture. 

A Scales of Analysis: Cultures as Heterogeneous and Polythetic 

In the past most archaeologists tended to view culture as homogenous and 
bounded (Brew 1946; Kreiger 1944; Rouse 1954). In addition, even later processual 
functionalists bounded cultural activities based on their environmental determinism 
(Binford 1968; Jochim 1976; Steward 1955). Jones (1997:1-6) attributes this 
blindness to the heterogeneous nature of culture to the politics embedded in 
archaeology. As discussed earlier, the birth of archaeology rests in a European 
context. Artifact types were used first to identify cultures and distinguish ethnic 
groups to support ideas of the superiority of Aryan Germanic super-race (Jones 
1997:1-6). Archaeology has its roots in western European ideology which covets 
otherness in attempts to not only segregate nonEuropeans from Europeans, but to 
bolster and maintain national identities within Europe. This meant that culture and 



40 
ethnicity had to be bound and separated from external influences, i.e., the overlapping 

and internal differences were whitewashed. 

With the changing political atmosphere in the 1960s, anthropologists began to 

more widely challenge the ideas of cultural boundaries and recognize the idea that 

within a culture there exists a variety of identities (Barth 1969; Fortes 1969; Leach, 

1964; Wilson and Wilson 1954). In the American Southwest, a debate began which 

surrounded the meaning behind archaeological typology, particularly ceramics (Ford 

and Steward 1954). Several of these researchers recognized that variations in ceramic 

assemblages traditionally associated with a culture might represent intracultural social 

groups. Gifford (1960) and Deetz (1967) in particular, concluded that attributes 

represent individual or site specific characteristics, varieties represent small social 

groups or subbranch area variation, types represent regional varieties or the patterns 

and value orientation held by the majority of a culture, and complexes represent broad 

cultural areas. In Europe, the work of Clarke (1968, 1972) also recognized the 

polythetic nature of culture and artifacts. He (Clarke 1968:366) applied a different 

scale of analysis recognizing site assemblage (family), subculture (group of families), 

culture (tribe), culture group (cluster of tribes), and technocomplex (as tribal 

confederation/nation). However, despite these early contributions, archaeology has 

been slow to recognize cultural heterogeneity (Hodder 1982; Jones 1996; Shennan 

1989). Recently, Jones (1996) stated: 

at one extreme there may be a high degree of homology between the 
structuring principles of the habitus and the signification of ethnicity and other 
identities in both material and non-material culture... however, there may also 
be a dislocation of such homologous relationships to the extent that the 
generation and expression of a common identity incorporates a bricolage of 



41 

different cultural traditions characterized by heterogeneous structuring 
principles in many social domains. (71-72) 

Material culture is produced, used, and discarded within social practices and social 

structures (Bourdieu 1977:76; Jones 1996:1 17). Anthropologists long ago recognized 

that the range of interdependence between members depends on the intensity of 

communication, which varies geographically and historically (Wilson and Wilson 

1954:25-30). Moreover, the similarities and differences in material form are 

generated, maintained, and transmitted depending on the degree of 

intercommunication between members of a population (Clarke 1968:364). In most 

societies, the highest degree of genetic and cultural communication occurs at the 

domestic group level. With the domestic group as the basic unit, Clarke views 

intercommunication in an increasingly wider framework to include groups of 

families, tribes, tribal groups, and confederations/nations. However, others have 

pointed out that trade, gift exchange, warfare, and other forms of intercultural 

communication can alter distribution patterns of the material world (Hodder and 

Orton 1976:55-73; Hodder 1977). Analyzing material remains in terms of significant 

social scales of analysis can provide us with a rich understanding of past social and 

economic structures (Clarke 1968; Hodder 1982; Jones 1996). 

Field Methodology 

Regional Survey 

To access an understanding of variation in Gamo stone tools, I enlisted a 
contextualized scale of analysis study. Hence, I studied the stone scrapers in terms of 



42 
their position in the environmental and cultural landscape. My ethnoarchaeological 

study of the Gamo hide-workers consisted of three stages of research: 1) documentary 

and archival research in Addis Ababa (6 weeks); 2) an ethnographic survey of the 

Gamo villages to locate hide-workers (6 months); and 3) in-depth interviews with 

hide-workers within four villages. I spent the first six weeks reviewing historic and 

ethnographic texts related to the Gamo and hide-working at the library of the Institute 

of Ethiopian Studies at Addis Ababa University. This research allowed me to collect 

information on the Gamo and their neighboring ethnic groups, which is otherwise 

unpublished. 

During my first six months among the Gamo, I studied the similarities and 
differences in their handles, sockets, and stone tools in terms of their location within 
the Gamo territory. I conducted an ethnographic survey of the Gamo hide-workers in 
order to: 1) survey the Gamo region to locate hide- workers, 2) record their social and 
geographical relationships, and 3) discover the types of handles and stone tools they 
were using. 

I interviewed at least one hide-worker from each of the villages (i.e., that has 
hide-workers) in 6 of the 10 Gamo districts (deres) including Doko, Kogo, Dorze, 
Ochollo, Zada, and Borada. The total number of hide-workers living in six of the 10 
districts is 550, which is an average of 92 hide-workers per district. Based on the 
latter calculation, there are probably at least 1000 Gamo hide-workers. The average 
number of individual hide-workers living in a village was three, with a range of 1 to 
15.1 interviewed the elder hide- worker of each lineage. Although most hide- workers 
did not know their age, I could estimate age by inquiring about political changes 



43 
which had occurred during their lifetime. The average age of the hide-workers I 

interviewed was 40-49, with a range from approximately 20 to 70 years. I chose the 

elders because hide-working is a dying occupation, as youths turn to other 

occupations. Elders also are more likely to continue to use stone, and they generally 

have a better knowledge of kinship relations and provide a good source for oral 

history. I also visited the districts (deres) of Ganta, Bonke, Kamba, and Dita, where I 

did less intensive surveys that involved visiting hide-workers who lived near the road 

and interviewing them in markets. During the survey, I interviewed 180 hide-workers 

living in 115 villages 

I obtained preliminary information concerning the type of handle and scraper 

raw material used (iron, glass, chert, and obsidian). I had the hide-workers relate to 

me the history of their material culture, such as how and from whom they learned 

hide-working and stone tool production, explanations for changes in material culture, 

and why they used specific forms or types of raw material. Where they scraped their 

hides, produced their scrapers, and discarded their scrapers (and why) were also 

important aspects to start gathering information on household spatial patterns. I 

collected unused and used stone scrapers from each stone-using hide-worker. I did 

not collect glass or iron scrapers. My goal was to collect at least 30 unused and 30 

used-up stone scrapers from each district from as many individuals as possible and 

from several of the more common clans (e.g., Gezemala, Zutuma, Damota, etc.). 

This resulted in a survey collection of 130 unused and 182 used-up scrapers. I 

measured every hide-worker's handle in terms of its length, width, and thickness, and 

I measured the sockets of each handle with a pair of calipers. The handle 



44 
measurements and scraper collection allowed me to compare the geographical 

distance and social differences of hide-workers against the similarities and differences 

manifest in their material culture. 

I recorded the location of the hide-workers' villages on 1 : 50,000 topographic 
maps and recorded as closely as possible the locations of their stone quarries. I also 
tried to record the location of the hide-worker's households within each village. This 
allowed me to determine the elevation of each village and the local availability and 
distance to resources related to hide-working (i.e., chert, wood, and mastic for 
handles). 

I used a questionnaire (which was added to throughout the survey) to 
determine the hide-workers' present and past economic, social, and political positions. 
I asked informants which markets they attended to evaluate their access to possible 
resources including materials from outside the Gamo region. I learned about the 
source and types of hides scraped and the products they made out of them. The 
number of hides scraped per week and the price or exchange goods received for the 
labor of scraping the hides was also assessed. I asked if they scraped hides for 
demand or for the market, and if they scraped on demand if they worked for particular 
families. I examined whether they owned land and why or why not, when they 
received the land and from whom, where the land was located and its suitability for 
agriculture, and the types of crops they planted. I asked whether there was any time 
of the year when hide-working labor increased and why. To further my knowledge 
about household economics and the possible origin of resources, I recorded the 
economic responsibilities of their wives and children. 



45 
The brief interviews during this stage also focused on gathering preliminary 

information concerning kinship and other types of social relationships (e.g., 
intraethnic, district (dere), subdistrict (mota), village (guta), and clan (onto)) the 
endogamous hide-workers have with others in their community. Furthermore, I asked 
how long the hide-worker and his lineage had lived in the current village. The 
construction of diagrams concerning hide-worker kinship relations provided the basis 
to link scraper form to social organization in terms of moiety, clan, and lineage 
relationships. It also allowed me to determine how hide-workers related to hide- 
workers in other villages and districts through marriage, and how and if this affected 
their resource acquisition and material culture. I entered the names and location of 
hide-workers and their kin in a database while in the field. I printed this list out and 
took it with me for the interviews. This allowed me to crosscheck kinship 
relationships and verify long-distance kinship and marriage patterns. 

I collected histories concerning hide-workers ritual-political leaders (degala 
Halakas) and how they were elected to determine their social relationships within 
their own caste group. I questioned them concerning their roles in rituals surrounding 
birth, puberty, and marriage rites of passage, and death within the larger Gamo 
society in which they interacted as members of a guta (village), mota (subdistrict), 
and dere (district). The latter enabled me to assess the social position and 
relationships of hide-workers to other members of Gamo society. 

The survey information led me to understand more clearly the environmental 
and social relationships important to the Gamo hide-workers and how they can be tied 
to household, intrasite, and intersite analysis of material culture (Figure 2-1). People 



46 
not only produce their materials but they organize themselves and their materials in 

meaningful spatial patterns within their subcultures. Other studies also have pointed 

out that the focus of archaeology has tended to be on the broader regional cultural 

scale, because of the idea that culture is homogenous (Crumley 1979; Marquardt and 

Crumley 1987). Accepting cultural heterogeneity and examining spatial relationships 

of materials within a culture offers the potential to explore more thoroughly the 

meanings behind variation whether it be functional or stylistic, or a combination. The 

Gamo emically defined socio-economic relationships symbolically tie them to 

specific locations in the landscape. 

Individual hide-workers collect their own resources for hide-working and 
produce and use their own scrapers (Figure 2-1). The most important learning unit in 
hide-working is the father-and-son relationship. Sons learn knapping and scraping 
from their fathers and furthermore they tend to live within the same village in close 
proximity. Hence, intrasite assemblage comparison of scrapers should reveal father- 
son clustering in terms of scraper morphology and distribution within a site. 
Furthermore, within a village, the individual is the member of a lineage, which 
includes grandfathers, uncles, and cousins who also share information that should 
reflect similarities in their scraper assemblages on an intrasite/village level. 

Each village may consist of lineages belonging to the same clan or to multiple 
clans. The Gamo clans are divided into two groups, moieties, which exchange 
spouses. Since residence is virilocal and stone tool production is a male-dominated 
trade in Gamo society, moiety membership may also be expressed in scraper 
morphology and related to residence. Lastly, the survey determined that the hide- 



47 
workers identify themselves closely with membership within districts, which also 

may be reflected in their stone tools. After my survey of the Gamo hide-workers, I 

worked with a limited number of hide-workers to understand three aspects of scraper 

morphology. First, the production, use, and discard of scrapers within the household 

and village contexts. Second, the social and economic relationships and how they 

afforded access and decisions concerning acquisition of resources. Lastly, I sought to 

explore the relationships between socio-economic membership, scraper morphology, 

and the context of scrapers. 



Individual 



Domestic group 



Lineage 



Moieties and Clans 



Districts 



Subregions (north, central, south) 



Ethnicity 



household assemblage 

cluster of related households 
intravillage assemblage 

village assemblage 

intervillage kin related 
assemblages 

intervillage ritual-political 
related assemblages 

lowland verses highland and 
geographical divisions based 
on rivers and mountains, 
subregional studies 

Western highland-lowland 
region of Lake Abaya and 
Chamo, regional analysis 



Figure 2-1: Diagram illustrating cultural and spatial relationships of material culture. 



48 
Localized Village Studies 

I studied four villages in-depth to focus on scraper production, use, and 
discard and the hide-workers' social, economic, and political position within society. 
I selected four villages in which the hide-workers: 1) only use stone; 2) use different 
handle types; 3) represent different clans; and 4) represent several generations from 
one lineage within a village. I decided to become the student of 30 individual hide- 
workers, who are members of four different clans (Gezemala, Zutuma, Bolosa, and 
Maagata). These individuals live in four different villages located in two districts 
(Borada and Zada). 

My survey indicated that only four Gamo districts (deres) have villages that 
use stone to the exclusion of glass and iron: Borada, Zada, Ochollo, and Bonke. 
Because I was studying kinship and learning practices, I wanted to study villages in 
which there were several generations of hide-workers and possibly many individuals 
related as cousins, fathers, and sons. In Ochollo and Bonke, each village had only 
one or two hide-workers and so I chose not to conduct in-depth studies in these 
districts. This left me with selecting villages in Borada and Zada. 

In order to discern if variation is the result of social groups or function, I 
wanted to study members of the same clan using the two Gamo handle types, tutuma 
(single-hafted nonmastic) and zucano (double-hafted mastic), even if in the past both 
types were used. My reasoning here was that individuals of the same clan should 
make a similar scraper form regardless of handle type because they are descendants 
from a common ancestor and stone tool production is a learned skill through the 
patrilineal line. Unfortunately, there were no two villages with hide-workers 



49 
belonging to the same clan and using different handles, which represented several 

generations of individuals from the same lineage. This in itself suggests that clans are 
closely tied to residence and specific handle types. I decided to study four different 
villages that represented four clans-two villages using tutuma (single-hafted 
nonmastic) handles (Zutuma and Bolosa clans) and two villages using zucano 
(double-hafted mastic) handles (Gezemala and Maagata clans). This would at least 
allow me to determine whether regularities associated with handle type would cross 
village membership. I selected the villages of Mogesa Shongalay, Eeyahoo 
Shongalay, Amure Dembe Chileshe, and Patela Tsela (Figure 2-2). 
Shongalay 

Between July and September 1997, 1 worked with the ten hide- workers living 
in Shongalay. Shongalay mota (subdistrict) is part of Borada dere (district) and 
consists of four villages (guta): Mogesa, Eeyahoo, Garay, and Agaya. In 1996, 
Shongalay had a population of approximately 1229 (529 males and 637 females) 
within 230 households (Hasen 1996a:3 14). Two of the villages, Mogesa and 
Eeyahoo, have hide-workers belonging to the Gezemala and Bolosa clans and I 
worked in both villages. Traveling to Shongalay was not easy. Shongalay is located 
a one and half- hour drive (16-km) north of Chencha (Figure 2-2). The villages of 
Eeyahoo and Mogesa are located to the east about 10-km or a two-hour walk from the 
main road. 

In Mogesa, the hide-workers all use a zucano (double-hafted mastic) handle 
with chert and obsidian. They belong to the same patrilineage of the Gezemala clan 
represented by three elders and their descendants. They each own a small plot of 



50 





i_ 



N 

A 



16 km 




O town 
• village 

unpaved road 



Figure 2-2: Map locating the four villages (Amure, Mogesa, Eeyahoo, and Patela) I 
studied in-depth within the Gamo territory. 



51 
farmland located two hours from their village. They very reluctantly complained 

about the condition of the land (which is not located near a good source of water and 
has many stones), for fear that the land would be taken away. The younger hide- 
workers practice Islam, but the elders did not practice an organized world religion. 

I also worked with the three hide-workers living in Eeyahoo Shongalay. They 
all use a tutuma (single-hafted nonmastic) handle with chert. The Eeyahoo hide- 
workers have all recently moved to Shongalay. I chose this village to work in 
because I wanted to study a group of hide-workers who had moved from one village 
to another. Would their hide-working materials and activities reflect their fathers' or 
would they more closely resemble local hide-workers in Mogesa Shongalay? Perhaps 
changes in the availability in resources and contact with nonkin hide-workers would 
affect their assemblage. Hence, I also collected hide-working materials and 
ethnographic information from the fathers of the Eeyahoo hide-workers. The first 
hide-worker to move to Eeyahoo said he moved to Eeyahoo because he was able to 
acquire land there (in the late 1970s when the socialist government redistributed 
land). He also stated that he was able to move to Shongalay because he was 
Gezemala like the other Shongalay hide-workers and so he had the right to live there. 
He is in his late 70s or 80s and no longer scrapes hides. The next two hide-workers, 
who moved to Eeyahoo, are brothers of the Bolosa clan from Ezo Kogo. Their 
mother left their father and came to Eeyahoo to work for a farmer. The farmer gave 
her and her sons land in exchange for their labor. The fourth hide-worker moved to 
Shongalay from Birbir Kogo and his clan is Gezemala. He moved to the village when 
he was a child to help his sister, who married an Eeyahoo smith. Although the four 



52 
hide-workers live near each other, within a kilometer, they do not live in a tight 

cluster, as do the Mogesa hide-workers. They each own a small plot of farmland 

located adjacent to their household on heavily eroding steep slopes. The three 

younger hide-workers claim membership in the Protestant church, although they do 

not actually ever go to church. 

Dembe Chileshe 

Between December 1997 and January 1998, 1 worked with nine hide- workers 
living in Dembe Chileshe. Dembe Chileshe has a population of approximately 3113 
(1581 males and 1532 females) within 577 households (Hasen 1996a:314). Dembe 
Chileshe mota (subdistrict) is part of Borada dere (district) and consists of 15 guta 
(villages): Amure, Abaya, Esera, Yayago, Holay, Zagay, Tocala, Gandala, Wuday, 
Hylasos, Tumacaro, Garero, Gargetchay, Seratay, and Kueso. Only one village, 
Amure, has hide-workers. Amure is easily accessible, as it lays adjacent to the main 
north-south road running through the Gamo highlands (Figure 2-2). It is 
approximately 20-km north of Chencha. Despite the fact that Amure hide-workers 
live near a large market center (Chileshe), where glass is easily obtainable, they 
continue to use chert because they prefer it. 

The Amure hide-workers who use a zucano (double-hafted mastic) handle 
with chert. They belong to the same patrilineage of the Maagata clan represented by 
two elders and their sons, nephews, and cousins. The Amure hide-workers live in a 
cluster of households on the northern edge lower edge of the village. They each own 
a small plot of farmland located one hour from their village. They also very 
reluctantly complained about the condition of the land for fear that the land would be 



53 
taken away. Like the Eeyahoo hide-workers, the Amure hide-workers claim to be 

Protestants even though they do not go to church services. In both villages, the 

farmers are predominately Protestant. I believe that in both instances there is social 

pressure for the hide-workers to enlist themselves into Protestant practices such as not 

smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol to get along with others in their community. 

Tsela 

Between January 1998 and March 1998, 1 worked with eleven hide-workers 
living in Tsela. In 1996, Tsela had a population of approximately 3128 (1542 males 
and 1586 females) within 596 households (Hasen 1996a:315). Tsela mota 
(subdistrict) is part of Zada dere (district) and consists of seven gutas (villages) 
including Atza, Hurooma, Terdo, Chaba/Patela, Zato/Henaso, Bageda, and Ochollo. 
Four of these villages, Bageda (8), Henaso (1), Ochollo (10), and Patela (1 1), have 
hide-workers. The branch road into Zada, which is located approximately 4-km north 
of Chencha, is only seasonal passable by automobile (Figure 2-2). Without the road, 
it would be a 4-hour walk from the main road to Patela. I worked in Patela Tsela 
during the dry season. After a 1-1/2 hour drive (8-km) on the very rough branch road, 
I walked another hour (4-km) to Patela. The other Tsela villages are located farther 
west than Patela. 

The Patela hide-workers use a tutuma (single-hafted nonmastic) handle and 
chert. They belong to the same patrilineage of the Zutuma clan represented by two 
elders and their sons, nephews, and cousins. Most of the hide-workers live in a 
cluster of households on the southwestern edge of the village, however two 
individuals live about 2-km to the east because the original land was getting too 



54 
crowded. They each own a small plot of farmland located one hour from their 
village. The Patela hide-workers gave me a variety of answers concerning their 
religious affiliations including Orthodox and Protestant. Often I would receive 
different answers from the same individual, which suggests to me that they do not 
practice an organized world religion. 

The study of these four villages allowed me to examine in detail the 
significant social scales of analysis in Gamo society and how they relate to stone 
scrapers. The interviews were less structured than those guided by my questionnaire 
in the survey phase. I tried to build on the survey information and questions that were 
elicited by my observations while living within the different villages. I witnessed 
each of the thirty hide-workers produce and use scrapers, which is essential to assess 
factors such as division of labor, spatial distributions, site formation, and the final tool 
morphology. In the end, I studied the hide- working practices of twenty-nine adults 
and one teenager. There was great variability in the amount of time it took to scrape a 
hide (two hours to three days) and in the number of scrapers used (one to eight). 
Subsequently, I was only able to watch each hide-worker scrape one hide. 

After I had watched each person scrape a hide, I would give him several zip- 
lock bags. I requested that in my absence whenever they scraped a hide to place the 
used-up scrapers in a bag. One collection bag of scrapers equaled one hide-scraping 
event. In three of my villages, this worked out well even if they did not return a 
collection of thirty scrapers per individual (as I never specified the number I was 
trying to achieve); in the end, I felt that each collection bag represented a single 
event. In the third village (Patela), two of the hide-workers had obviously just 



55 
collected scrapers from their fields (as they were covered with soil) and thrown them 

in the bag. They decided that they would keep the other bags for themselves 

(although I would have given them some). The latter samples were not included 

when I determined the number of scrapers per hide-working event or the morphology 

of scrapers based on types of hides (see Chapter 4). I also observed each person 

making thirty new scrapers either at the quarry or at their household, depending on 

their habit. 

I provided a stone tool-sorting test for the Gamo hide-workers living in the 

villages of Amure, Patela, Mogesa, and Eeyahoo. Although I knew the context of all 

the scrapers in the test, the hide-workers did not. The stone tool assemblage consisted 

of scrapers in a variety of raw material colors both unused and used-up scrapers from 

all four villages. Although I asked individual hide-workers to pile sort the scrapers, 

the hide-workers conducted the sorting in a group effort rather than as individuals. 

The purpose of the sorting test was to determine if the hide-workers represent their 

identity with intent on any level in the production of their stone tools, and if they 

could later identify their own scrapers in terms of specific attributes. In essence, I 

wanted to know if they consciously or unconsciously represented their social groups 

through their stone tools. I began by asking them to sort the pile of stones into any 

groups they thought were significant. They did not seem to understand and so I asked 

more direct questions: 1) which scrapers would you use and why or why not, 2) 

which scrapers were made for a tutuma (single-hafted nonmastic) and which for a 

zucano (double-hafted mastic) and how do you distinguish them, 3) which scrapers 



56 

were made in your village and how do you know, and 4) which scrapers did you 

make and how do you know? 

I watched, videotaped, and photographed the hide-workers search quarries for 
raw materials, produce stone scrapers, haft the scrapers, use the scrapers, and discard 
the scrapers. I made a general map of each household lithic production, use, and 
discard areas within the village. I requested a vocabulary relating to hide-working and 
the stone tools. 

Although stylistic preference may be reflected in the selection of raw materials, 
it also may be constricted by geographical and socio-political factors. The origins of 
the raw materials may be critical in assessing this aspect of variation. I questioned 
the hide-workers concerning their choice in raw material selection (including the 
presence of color, cortex, and patina). 

The size and shape of the scraper produced may be a direct reflection of the 
type of handle in which it is to be fixed. The different handles and binding materials 
may produce different microscars on the portion of the scraper to which it is affixed. 
Thus, I measured the handles (length, width, and thickness) and their sockets (height, 
width, and sometimes depth). I also inquired about the type of mastic and how it was 
acquired and made. 

The working edge of the tool may be affected by the size and type of hide that 
is processed, by the type of tool that is used for retouch, by the tension angle at which 
the hide is bolstered, and by how many times it is used before resharpening. The 
direction in which they scrape the hide may be group-specific and reflected in the 
orientation of striations found on the ventral surface of the scrapers. I measured the 



57 
height, width, and angle (using a climometer) of the scraping frame and the hide 

stretched on the frame. The thickness of the hide was measured, as well as its length 

and width. I also counted the number of times the enset rope was woven through the 

hide to lash it to the scraping frame to determine tension. During scraping, I recorded 

the direction of the scrapes and the part of the hide scraped, i.e., upper center, lower 

center, upper left, etc. 

The size and shape of a scraper may change through use and thus it was 
important to take measurements of scrapers before and during their use. I measured 
and drew each individual iron billet used to shape the scrapers. I measured the 
scraper's length, width, and thickness (using metric calipers), and edge angle (using a 
goniometer) before it was hafted. After a tool was hafted I measured the length it 
protruded from the socket and if possible the edge angle. Since the hide-workers do 
not discard scrapers until they are exhausted, often partially used scrapers were 
already hafted and used for the scraping event I witnessed. In this instance, all I 
could do was measure the length and angle of the scraper as it protruded from the 
handle. I measured the length and edge angle of each scraper during breaks in 
scraping and after they resharpened the scraper. This would determine how much 
resharpening and reduction was required after particular activities. 

I recorded in a notebook using a manual counter the number of times they 
resharpened and then used each scraper to scrape and chop. The numbers recorded in 
my notebook were checked against the videotape to insure accurate counting of the 
number of scrapes, chops, and retouching activities. Hide-workers often used two or 
more handles, so I tied ribbons on the handles, to make sure I knew which handle and 



58 
scraper was being used, and which side of the zucano (double-hafted mastic) handle 

was being used. This made it easier to keep track of when and where each scraper 

was being used on the hide. 

I asked the hide- workers to resharpen the scrapers over a piece of cloth so that 

I could collect all the retouch from each scraper that I observed used. One person's 

retouch from one day's work was collected together (i.e., one collection bag may 

represent several scrapers retouch flakes). At the end of the event, I collected all the 

scrapers used-up and partially used. I also remeasured the thickness of the hide. 

Scraper Analyses 

My final collection of Gamo stone scrapers totaled 2139, which consisted of 
312 survey scrapers collected from the survey and 1827 scrapers collected from the 
four villages. The bases of my analyses are the contextual data obtained through 
interviews and the unused (n= 941, 130 survey and 81 1 village), broken (n=42) or 
partially used (n=93), and used-up (n=1054, 182 survey and 881 village) scrapers. 
These stages of use and disuse were emically determined by the hide-workers. 
Unused scrapers are defined as those scrapers which are ready for use but have not 
yet been engaged in preparing a hide. Partially used scrapers are scrapers that have 
been used on a hide and are still useable. Hide-workers were very reluctant to give- 
up partially used scrapers even when I offered them money in exchange. Used-up 
scrapers are those scrapers that have been used to prepare a hide but are no longer 
considered useable by the hide-worker, i.e., scrapers that can be discarded. I did not 



59 

conduct excavations of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or modern trash 

pits. 

In addition to the cultural context of each stone scraper that I collected, I also 
recorded aspects of its morphology in an attribute analysis. I measured and assessed 
all the attributes on each of the 2139 scrapers twice, and I went through the collection 
a third time randomly checking measurements to avoid mistakes and ensure accuracy 
or at least consistency in my measurements. Ethiopia's regulations concerning 
bringing cultural materials out of the country are very strict and so I completed the 
analyses while I was living in Ethiopia. Conducting the analyses in the field was 
useful when questions arose concerning the context of the scraper. It allowed me to 
ask specific questions concerning the presence of attributes such as spurs, ventral 
thinning, etc. The equipment used for the attribute analysis included a set of metric 
calipers, a goniometer, a 20x hand-lens, and an Ohaus balance (400 x O.lg). I did not 
have access to a microscope with polarized light (no electricity) and so microwear 
studies were all completed with the 20x hand-lens. I have not provided my raw 
measurements in the appendix, as I will publish them in the future. However, 
Appendix C does provide the formulas I used to perform t-test, chi-square, covariance 
analysis, as well as means, co-variation, and the results of the statistical tests. 

Unlike archaeological tools that may have attributes as the result of 
postdepositional damage, all of the attributes on the Gamo tools were the result of 
predepositional human activity. The attributes I examined are a combination of those 
described to me as important to the Gamo and those thought to be significant by 
archaeologists. Archaeologists have created by far many more attributes under study 



60 
than the Gamo would consider important. Archaeologists have difficulties in 

deciding which attributes represent which type of explanation in terms of function 

verses style. Stylists are quicker to admit that to designate a fixed catalogue of 

attributes representing style is difficult because style is dependent on spatial and 

contextual data. The isochrestic approach to style advocates that it is a sum of the 

different components of the overall morphology of an object rather than individual 

attributes that identify style (Sackett 1985, 1989). There is no consensus among 

archaeologists as to which stone tool attributes represent variation as a result of style, 

function, or a combination of the two. 

The Gamo consciously recognize the type (color) of raw material as an 

important aspect of the tool. Archaeologists have also determined a lithic's utilitarian 

meaning and style through the raw material type (Close 1989; Gould et al. 1971 ; 

Gould 1974; Jelinek 1976; Luedtke 1976; Sackett 1985:280). The color of the chert 

is important to the hide-workers because they associate specific colors with better 

conchoidal fracturing. They blow on the stone and if there is a shiny reflection, they 

consider it good for flaking. They feel that patina on the chert indicates that it is old 

and poor for flaking, although they occasionally use it. They remove cortex as much 

as possible, as they consider it poor for flaking and achieving a sharp working edge. I 

used a combination of the emic color descriptions and the Munsel Rock Color chart to 

record the color of the scrapers. I recorded the amount of cortex relating to its 

percentage of coverage over the entire tool and not just on the dorsal face of the tool, 

because this seemed important to the hide-workers. I also recorded the presence or 

absence of patina. 



61 
The hide-workers also examine thickness, length, and width to determine their 

scrapers' stage of use and acceptability for hafting. They assess the thickness of the 

proximal end and the width to ensure that a scraper will fit within the haft. 

Furthermore, a scraper must not be too long or too thin, as it will break during use. 

The sharpness of the working edge is determined by examining the distal thickness 

and the amount of projections on the ventral side of the edge. That is, they examine 

the ventral side of the tool, which touches the hide rather than the dorsal-side which 

archaeologists generally study. After they resharpen an edge, they flip the scraper 

over to look at the dorsal side to again examine the thickness and angle for its 

suitability in either scraping or chopping activities. Archaeologists also explore the 

overall morphology of stone tools such as length, width and thickness, as well as 

other features such as dorsal scar pattern (the pattern of flake removal from the dorsal 

side of the tool), location and type platform (the surface area on the tool where it was 

hit for its removal from the parent material), cross-section (a view of the tool with one 

of the lateral edges facing upward), and edge forms (the shape of the edges of the 

tool)- to determine the type of production and stage of use of the tool and the identity 

of the maker (Bordes 1961, 1973; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970; de 

Sonneville-Bordes 1954; Dibble 1984, 1987; Kuhn 1992; Sackett 1989, 1990). 

Hence, I took several metric measurements of each scraper including: maximum 

length, proximal width, medial width, and distal width, distal thickness, proximal 

thickness, retouch length (Figure 2-3). My typology concerning platform type, dorsal 

scar pattern, and cross-section was based on typologies derived for Stone Age 



62 
assemblages in East Africa by Clark and Kleindienst (1974) and Melman (1989:128- 

132). 

I also questioned the hide-workers concerning other attributes, which I noted 
on their tools such as the presence of spurs, distal edge hinge fractures, lateral 
notching, dorsal spine flake removal, and ventral thinning (Figure 2-4). Microwear 
studies of lateral notching, crushing, ventral thinning, and crushing of dorsal ridge are 
all techniques thought to be associated with the hafting of scrapers (Beyeries 1988; 
Deacon and Deacon 1980; Hayden 1979; Keeley 1982; McNiven 1994; Rule and 
Evans 1985:214; Shott 1995). Previous researchers believe that knappers created 
spurs either on purpose for use as engravers (Rogers 1986; Wilmsen 1968) or as the 
result of reuse of a scraper after it has broken (Rule and Evans 1985). 

The hide-workers, in the sorting tests, ascribed used-up tools as those that 
were thicker, duller, and with more retouch. They also distinguished scrapers by 
handle types based on retouch location and invasiveness. Experimental studies of 
hide-working have recorded the presence of rounding of the used edge, striatures, and 
a luster or polish especially after use on drier hides (Brink 1978:94-1 14; Hayden 
1993; Hurcombe 1992:45-46; Keeley 1980:50-53; Kimball 1995; McDevitt 1987; 
Vaughan 1985:26-27). They also relied on edge angle studies to determine the 
function of the tool (Brink 1978; Wilmsen 1968). The edge angle and the location of 
retouch also are considered as elements of social identity (Bordes 1961; de 
Sonneville-Bordes 1954; Close 1977, 1989; Sackett 1985). In addition, weight has 
been offered as a mean to distinguish the function of a tool (Cantwell 1979). 
Therefore, I also took edge angle measurements of the distal, laterals, and proximal 



63 



distal 
thickness 



distal 
breadth 



maximum 
length 




proximal 
thickness 



medial 
breadth 





L 



2 



4 cm 

_J 



Figure 2-3: Illustration of a Gamo scraper indicating the morphological measurement 
for analysis. 



64 





Figure 2-4: Illustration of Gamo scrapers with dorsal spine removal (A), undercut (B), 
and spur (C). 



65 

edges (Figure 2-3). On the distal edge I took three measurements-one on the left, 
right, and center--and combined these for an average edge angle. I also recorded the 
arch of the retouch and location of the retouch (ventral, dorsal, lateral, distal, etc.). I 
measured the depth of or invasiveness of the retouch with calipers on all edges for all 
the tools. I weighed the scrapers and used a 20x hand-lens to look for channels, 
striations, notches, and rounding, but only on the working edges of the scrapers, that I 
directly observed used. 

The Gamo stone scraper collection represents in archaeological terminology a 
single cultural horizon or assemblage. The time depth of this collection is extremely 
short and hence represents what archaeologists would term a single cultural period in 
a restricted geographic region. It is not the purpose of this study to provide a model 
of stone tool variation through time, only across space within a single time unit. 

Premise 

This ethnoarchaeological study of the Gamo hide-workers concentrates on a 
contextualized understanding of stone scrapers. A contextualized approach to 
ethnoarchaeology unmasks the heterogeneous nature of culture revealing the 
necessary background information to infer the meanings behind material variation. 
This method is scientific and exposes our ethnocentric interpretations of the past. 
Arguably, people who continue to produce similar materials as that of past people 
might be able to provide insights that are not conceivable to the archaeologist, who is 
not familiar with the material on a daily basis. Hence, my two-year study of the 
Gamo hide-workers focused upon emic perceptions concerning stone tool 



66 
morphology to expand our knowledge concerning the meanings behind stone tool 

variation. 



CHAPTER 3 

CONTEXTUALIZING STONE TOOL VARIABILITY: 

THE GAMO ENVIRONMENT AND CULTURE 



The Gamo environmental resources and their economic, political, and social 
relations provide the context for understanding functional and stylistic variation in 
the morphology and distribution of their stone tools. Too often, ethnoarchaeological 
studies lack an in-depth understanding of the environment and culture associated 
with the materials they are studying. However, as argued in the previous chapter, 
only a contextualized approach reveals the necessary background to expose the 
expressed material similarities and differences. 

The Gamo are agriculturists who live in the highland-lowland region to the 
east of the Rift Valley lakes of Abaya and Chamo. The biannual rains and numerous 
rivers erode the rich basaltic foundation exposing chert sources for stone tool 
production and use, and creating broad valleys for agriculture. Major rivers and 
mountains signal the boundaries between the Gamo political districts (deres). Each 
village (guta) has an open field with a centrally located tree or forest marking the 
village meeting place (debusha), where elders and ritual-political leaders meet to 
resolve social and political issues. The thatched houses and associated agricultural 
fields of villages cluster by settled lineages. The smaller and often poorly thatched 
households are located on lower or higher portions of villages, usually on extreme 
slopes, where gardening is difficult. This division of the village landscape is an 

67 



68 
indication of social stratification distinguishing the households of artisans, including 

the hide-workers, whom I studied for two years. 

This chapter reviews aspects of the Gamo environment for possible sources 

of functional variation associated with stone scrapers, and it also examines Gamo 

culture and social identities to reveal possible sources of stone tool stylistic variation. 

The Gamo live in a diverse region that includes both highland and lowland 

environments. This potentially could affect the resources they chose and the way in 

which they use them, and offer functional explanations for stone tool variation. 

Their social structure also lends itself to examining differences and similarities in 

material culture, including stone tools, differentiated in terms of intraethnic divisions 

such as: subregions, political districts (deres), villages, moieties, clans, lineages, and 

domestic groups. 

Evaluating Function: Regional Environment, Resources, and Economy 

Examining the regional setting of the Gamo provides for an understanding of 
the locally available resources. The hide-workers' economic position within Gamo 
society dictates their ability to access resources for their craft and the activities 
associated with the hide-working process. If the environment and activities in which 
a stone tool are used account for most of the synchronic variability, then formal 
variation in Gamo scrapers should have no significant variation among hide-workers 
who engage in the same hide-working activities. Variation in the scrapers will only 
differ when there are differences in resources and activities such as scraping with 
different types of raw material, scraping different types of hide, and the scraping of a 



69 
hide for different products. The latter are dependent on the geography of the Gamo 

territory and their economic relationships. 

The hide-workers scrape cattle hides primarily for bedding. Today in 
addition to scraping hides, the hide-workers engage in other craft-production 
activities such as producing baskets and horn-made spoons, wood-working, and iron- 
working. The wives of the hide-workers spin cotton, collect grass, decorate gourds, 
produce uncha (fermented bread) from enset to sell at the market, cook, collect 
water, and care for children. If a hide-worker owns land, his wife fertilizes the fields 
and weeds them almost continuously throughout the year. She also harvests and 
prepares all foodstuffs. The children of hide-workers rarely attend school because 
they cannot afford supplies or uniforms. The sons often spend their days tending to 
the domesticated stock, which belong to mala (citizens and farmers). The daughters 
care for younger children and aid their mothers with their work. 

Most Gamo artisans, including hide-workers, live in the highland (geza) 
region of the Gamo territory. The Gamo territory covers a 2400-km 2 region with 
elevation ranging from 1200 to above 3000 meters (Figure 3-1). They recognize two 
environmental zones: the highlands (geza) (2300-3000 meters) and the lowlands 
(baso) (1500-2300 meters) (Cartledge 1995:46-50; Jackson et al. 1969:1-5; Jackson 
1970). The region above 3000 meters has little settlement due to the inhospitable 
nature of the land formations and environment for agriculture. The geza is a cool 
moist zone with the highest population densities and agricultural production. The 
lowland area was not settled until encouragement from the socialist government 
(circa 1977), which opened the area through its programs of Villagization and state 






70 




Elevations 
H 1180m 

■ 1500m 

■ 2300m 

■ 3000m 



Figure 3-1: Map illustrating the elevation differences in the region where the Gamo 
live. 






71 
farms (Gilkes 1994:354-355; Van Buren 1993:127-129). Artisans do not generally 

live in the lowland regions because the farmers believe they will pollute the fields, 

which already have poor yield because of the environmental circumstance. 

Furthermore, there are no clays for potters, and hides rot quickly in the heat, making 

hide-working a difficult pursuit. 

The Gamo hide-workers use chert and obsidian as their medium for tool 
production. The Gamo highlands represent the southernmost protrusion of late 
Tertiary lava, which was uplifted and fractured by the Rift Valley. The basaltic 
plateau of the highlands supports the formation of cryptocrystalline rocks such as 
chert. All the Gamo chert sources are located at an elevation of circa 2000 meters, 
which the Gamo consider lowland (baso) territory. To the north of the Gamo in the 
Wolayta highlands, the volcanic environment created obsidian deposits. The hide- 
workers exhibit a wide range of procurement strategies including direct access to 
natural chert outcrops, recycling of archaeological obsidian, and bartering/trading 
with a middleman for both chert and obsidian. As mentioned in Chapter 1, farmers 
consider stones worthless and even a cause of infertility to farmland. Since the 
farmers do not value stones, they allow the hide-workers to collect this resource 
without charge. In some instances, hide-workers sell chert and obsidian to one 
another (discussed in Chapter 4). 

Cherts are available only seasonally during the rains, which erode the nodules 
out from their basaltic sources into streambeds. The Gamo region is located in the 
Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITC) and so receives two annual seasons of rainfall: 
the little rains that occur between March and May, and the big rains that last from 



72 
July through early September (Gamachu 1977:6-7). During the rainy seasons, the 

hide-workers visit the quarries at least once a week. This limits the amount and 

timing of resources available for hide scraping. Consequently, further study of the 

hide-workers has the potential to reveal the cultural and economic factors that 

influence the decision to use a particular material (Torrence 1986:61-65). 

The hide-workers also use wood, mastic, and hides for their craft that they 
collect from both the highland (geza) and lowland (baso) environments. The 
highland vegetation includes junipers, eucalyptus, and bamboo, which the hide- 
workers use to produce their tutuma (single hafted nonmastic) handles. In addition 
to the highland woods, the hide-workers use the lowland acacia wood and mastic to 
make zucano (double-hafted mastic) handles. The highland regions harbor antelope, 
wild fowl, monkeys, porcupine, hyena, leopard, jackals, and fox. The lowland area 
has many species of monkeys, antelope, and crocodile. In the past, lion, elephant, 
rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and buffalo were also present as evident from the 
presence of shields made of these animal hides, which the hide-workers made 
(Cartledge 1995:276). Today, hide-workers scrape both highland and lowland cattle 
hides, which they distinguish, based on the thickness and roughness of the hide. The 
types of animals available are important for assessing the types of hides the Gamo 
scrape, which may affect the use wear and morphology of the scrapers. The 
opportunity is thus open for exploring how culture and environment intersect in 
material culture (i.e., handle and scraper type). 

The hide-worker obtains hides through his patron-client relationship (mayla) 
with neighboring farmers (mala). Domesticated animals such as cattle (Bos indicus), 



73 
sheep (Ovis aries), or goats (Capra hircus) may be found within a hide- worker's 

household. However, the hide-worker does not own them, he only cares for them 
and uses their products. During the holidays, the farmers give the head, entrails, 
legs, and tail to the hide-worker as an expected gift. The mala consider these parts 
of the animal, especially the entrails, as potentially dangerous to eat, as diviners use 
them to invoke the sources of taboo infractions. It is also during the holidays, when 
they slaughter the animals for sacrifice, that the farmers give the hide-workers hides 
to scrape. However, the hide does not actually belong to the hide-worker, who is 
given it to scrape for a fee, as he cannot sell or give it to another person. Hide- 
workers predominately scrape hides on demand; because the cost of hides is too 
much for them to purchase and resell at the market. At the market, the average cost 
of a raw cattle hide is 9 to 10 ETB (US $ 1 .38 to 1 .54) and to purchase a cow costs 
600 ETB (US $92.31). If sold at the market, a scraped hide yields 10 to 15 ETB 
(US$ 1 .5 to 3.0). If a hide is scraped for demand, the hide-worker receives crops 
such as barley and enset or 1 to 3 ETB (US $0.15 to 0.46) in payment. 

I estimated the average Gamo hide-worker's yearly income at 104 to 208 
ETB (US $16 to 32) based exclusively on scraping hides. Karsten (1972:80), 
however, estimated a much higher annual income at US $270 based almost 
exclusively on hide scraping. Karsten noted in the early 1970s that the Gamo hide- 
workers had no cash crop farmland only small gardens associated with their homes. 
An explanation for the differences in hide-workers income between my own study 
and Karsten's may be offered in the following discussion of the political and 
economic changes since the 1970s. 



74 
Until recently, hide- workers only owned small plots of land for their house 

and a garden; they did not own farmland. In 1975, land reform, the most successful 

and popular of the revolution's policies, was enacted. In September 1974, the 

coordinating committee (PMAC) or "Derg," a socialist government, replaced Haile 

Selassie's imperial regime (Gilkes 1994:353-354). The radical redistribution of land 

resulted in the complete abolition of landlords, which had been one of the chief 

causes of inequity during the previous regime. During this period, artisans who 

previously had no land to farm, such as the Gamo hide-workers, acquired land. In 

comparison to farmers' croplands, the hide-workers own very small parcels of land, 

and they are usually located on the poorest local soils containing many rocks and 

boulders with insufficient access to water and sometimes steeply graded. 

Since the end of the socialist government in 1991, some hide-workers (35 

percent of the survey population, n=180 individuals) lost their land when they were 

accused of witchcraft and criminal activity. Even for those hide-workers who 

continue to own farmland, it can be difficult to maintain hide-working practices 

while farming. The Gamo highlands have two rainy seasons, and subsequently two 

planting and harvesting seasons (Jackson et al. 1969:4; Jackson 1970:5). Women are 

responsible for processing and harvesting, while men prepare the soil and plant 

crops. The Gamo plant their major food crops of enset, legumes, wheat, and barley 

from March to April and from July to August (Cartledge 1995: 161 ; Olmstead 

1974b). In addition, the Gamo plant the smaller crops (potatoes, cabbage, and 

tobacco) from June to September. This means that the planting seasons overlap with 



75 
the chert procurement periods (see the above description in this chapter for the stone 

procurement period). 

During the socialist government, there was also an increase in export of 
hides, especially goat hides to Italy, France, West Germany, United Kingdom, and 
the Netherlands (Hailu 1980). In 1959, the net worth of exported hides was US $9 
million (Lakew 1969), in 1974-5 it was US $56 million, and by 1990 it had risen to 
US $215 million (Hasen 1996b). The demand for goat hides in Addis Ababa raised 
rural local market prices. Hides, especially goat hides, are brought through the rural 
market system to Addis Ababa, where they are tanned in industrial shops for export. 
Hide-workers usually are not included in the sale of hides because they do not own 
them. However, occasionally, hide-workers will sell a hide for a farmer for a small 
commission. In addition, there has been an increased distribution of western 
clothing, agricultural sacks, rope, and string in rural Ethiopia replacing many of the 
items previously made out of hides. The reduced local demand for hide products 
means that hide-working skills are diminishing and in less demand today than they 
were thirty years ago. 

In a population of over 600,000 (Hasen 1996a:313-318), my survey revealed 
that hide-workers and their families represent only 0.25 percent of the population, a 
dramatic decrease from Karsten's estimation at 0.4 percent in 1972. The hide- 
working population and demand for hide products is diminishing, resulting in 
changes in the available resource base and the material culture associated with hide- 
working (i.e., types of scraper raw materials, hafting, and types of hide scraped). In 
the past, the hide-workers were dependent primarily on the exchange of their craft 



76 
goods to obtain food. They produce commodities used by almost every household 

out of materials such as stone and hides, which are otherwise useless in Gamo 

society. However, the acquisition of land and the introduction of new materials such 

as glass must have an effect on hide-working practices. The Gamo hide-workers 

acquire their chert or obsidian from either a market or a quarry, but now many also 

use glass. The local environment and external influences must in many ways affect 

the types of leather products in demand (saddles, bags, and bedding), the raw 

material scraper resources (chert, obsidian, and glass), the handles (tutuma and 

zucano), and the hides (wild and domesticated animals) that the hide-worker scrape 

to produce their products. These observations of the hide- workers demonstrate the 

rich array of potential environmental and economic factors that may affect the life 

cycle of a stone tool (i.e., length of use life, edge angle and shape, etc.) that in turn 

may alter its appearance (discussed in Chapter 4). 

Evaluating Style: Social Organization 

If style and the expression of social identity account for the variability 
witnessed in the synchronic appearance of Gamo stone tools, then it is important to 
establish the socio-political memberships that are important to the Gamo people. If 
style rather than function provides an explanation for material culture variation, 
scraper morphology will be similar between members of the same social group and 
different between members who do not share social relationships. Social identity is 
flexible and exists on several levels in Gamo society including interethnic relations, 



77 
and membership in a specific language family, caste, kinship, and ritual-political 

groups. 

Interethnic Relationships 

The relationships that the Gamo have with other ethnic groups may affect 
their access to and knowledge of different resources as well as their craft-production 
technology. The Gamo are Omotic speaking peoples, and the Omotic languages are 
now generally considered a branch of the Afro-Asiatic languages (Fleming 1973, 
1976), but there is some debate over its relationship with other Afro-Asiatic language 
families (Hay ward 1998). In early travelers' accounts and ethnographies, the Omotic 
peoples were often referred to as the Sidama (Cerulli 1956:85-132) or the Western 
Cushitic (Straube 1963). Today, Omotic languages are linguistically separated into a 
north and south division (Fleming 1973, 1976). The Gamo are southern Omotic 
speakers (Figure 3-2) belonging to the Ometo group, which also includes the Ganjule 
(who inhabit an island on Lake Chamo), Gatame-Kachama (island in south of Lake 
Abaya), Kore-Zayse, Oyda, Basketo, Dime, Hamar and Welamo (the latter includes 
the Wolayta, Male, Gamo, Gofa, Kullo/Daro, Kunta, Malo, Kucha, Laha, and 
Marta). 

Knowledge of the prehistory of Omotic societies is nonexistent in the absence 
of archaeological investigation, and relies solely on linguistic reconstructions. The 
proto-Omotic speakers probably began populating the highlands of Ethiopia 7000 
years ago and began cultivating enset (Ehret 1979). Today Omotic societies only 
occupy southwestern Ethiopia and most cultivate enset (Donham 1985; Lange 1976; 



78 







Figure 3-2: Map of southwestern Ethiopia locating the Omotic-speaking groups 
mentioned in the text (based on a map by Straube 1963:1). 



79 
Olmstead 1975; Straube 1963). Omotic peoples' contact with neighboring Cushitic 

peoples and their shared terms for domesticated stock and grains indicates a 

borrowing of these foods from their Cushitic neighbors (Ehret 1979). 

The history of southern Ethiopia and Omotic people also is fragmentary 
because of the lack of written records. The historical accounts that exist are based on 
the written records of their northern neighbors, early travelers' accounts, and later 
studies of oral history. It was not until between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries, 
that the Ethiopian state was officially redefined (and mentioned in texts) to include 
the people of southwestern Ethiopia (Fanta 1985; Lange 1982:1-13; Marcus 
1994: 19-29). The Wolayta came under the control of northern Ethiopia during the 
reign of Amda Syon (1312-1343) (Beckingham and Huntingford 1954:LXV). 
However, it was not until Zara Yaqob (1434-1468) that the Gamo became the 
southernmost limit of the evangelization of the northern Christian Empire (Bureau 
1976). This is evident by the presence of fifteenth-and sixteenth-century Orthodox 
churches, texts, and crosses in the Gamo region (Azai's and Chambard 1931 :260- 
269). The Kucha ruled the Gamo, as well as the Wolayta and Kullo, until circa 1550 
(Borelli 1890; Beckingham and Huntingford 1954:LXV). 

A Muslim invasion instigated by Mohammed Gran (1527-1543) during the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, conquered most of northern Ethiopia (Marcus 
1994: 19-29). In addition, there were two Muslim states established in southwestern 
Ethiopia, Hadiya and Bali (Beckingham and Huntingford 1954:LXIV). Bahrey 
(1993 reprint of 1593, also see Cerulli 1956:86) wrote in the 16 th century that Bali 



80 
extended as far south as Lake Abaya, absorbing the Darasa, Gamo, and Kucha. 

However, Aza'is and Chambard (1931:260-269) and Bureau (1976) believed that the 

Gamo escaped Moslem domination and remained a stronghold of Christianity. 

Today there are few people practicing Islam among the Gamo. One Islamic 

community is located in Shongalay, where I conducted research. Thirty years ago, a 

man, who moved to the area from the north, brought Islam to Shongalay. The local 

people converted the Orthodox Church into a mosque. 

During the 16 th century, the Oromo migrations forced many Omotic peoples 
to move further south (Abir 1970). Our earliest description of the Gamo people 
comes from Bahrey who was an ecclesiastic monk living among the Gamo circa 
1593 (Bahrey 1993 reprint of 1593). He recounts that the Galla/Oromo invaded and 
looted his home. Oral histories collected by Abeles (1977) suggest that the Gamo 
adopted their use of phallic headdress emblems and rites of passage from the Oromo, 
during this time. 

By 1 820, the Gamo and most of the other Omotic societies were tributaries to 
the Omotic king of Kafa (Gonga on Figure 3-2, Beckingham and Huntingford 
1954:LXVI). In 1893, Menelik conquered the Kullo, Konto, Gofa, Gamo, and 
Wolayta (Hodson 1929). The Gamo magistrates carry titles of which the names 
Halaka and Dana probably originate from the Amharic Aleqa and Dana (Bureau 
1979). The Gamo, as other conquered peoples, were forced to owe labor and tribute 
to the Amhara soldiers, who became local settlers and administrators (Marcus 
1994:19-20). Under the feudalistic system, the Gamo Kaos (ritual-sacrificers for 
districts) became local administrators (referred to as Balabat by the National 



81 
Empire), who interacted between the people and the Amhara soldiers (Bureau 1979; 

Olmstead 1997:29). 

In this century, the Gamo have been fully incorporated into the Ethiopia state 
through periods of control from the national government including: colonialism 
(1935-1941), feudalism (1941-1974), socialism (1974-1991), and currently a 
provisional democratic government (Olmstead 1997:29). Italian colonization of 
Ethiopia was marked mostly by military personnel rather than by civilian settlement 
(Sbacchi 1985:95-109). The Italian policy was to adapt to traditions, which fractured 
the Italian administration of Ethiopia across ethnic lines. While the Italians removed 
national leadership, districts and villages retained local leadership. In contrast, the 
later socialist government prohibited any social or political act that redeemed any 
sense of ethnicity in place of nationality. During this time, the Gamo people enacted 
their ceremonies in secret at night. The Gamo still say the phrase "all people are 
equal," especially to foreigners, though it is clearly not practiced. Although land was 
redistributed during the socialist government to include artisans, local leaders denied 
artisans land and privileges through allegations of criminal activity. The traditional 
Gamo ritual-social positions became obsolete in the eyes of the new Ethiopian 
government and were replaced with Chairmen and Peasant Associations. 

The maintenance of Gamo identity through these national and local changes 
can partially be ascribed to the poor attempts of national education and the fact that 
most Gamo people continue to speak their own language. The education of the rural 
population was not stressed until during the time of the socialist government and 
though it is also a focus of the current government, it is estimated that only 20 



82 
percent of the Gamo people are literate and attend school (Hasen 1996c:76-79). By 

maintaining their own language, the Gamo are ensuring the preservation of their 

ideological organization of nature, people, and the material world. It is not the intent 

of this research to conduct an in-depth study of the prehistoric or historic position of 

hide-workers and artisans within Gamo society. However, in Chapter 5, 1 do explore 

avenues of oral history, history, and interethnic relationships to explain the current 

distribution and types of material culture associated with Gamo hide-working. 

Intraethnic Social-Political Relationships 

Gamo intraethnic relationships include the associations between caste groups, 
political districts, and sub-regions. The Gamo, like most Ethiopian societies, 
segregate themselves into noncitizen artisan (tsoma) and citizen farmer (mala) 
groups, and restrict artisans with regard to social, economic, and political mobility. 
Within Gamo society, artisans and farmers are members of political districts (deres) 
that serve as the basis for ritual-political power. Although subregions are a broader 
category than deres, I discuss subregions last because they envelop variations present 
in dere membership and caste roles. 
Caste groups 

Although there is some debate concerning the social status of Ethiopian 
artisans (Cerulli 1956:61-62; Haberland 1984, 1993; Hamar 1987:60; Levine 
1974:39; Lewis 1962, 1974; Todd 1978b), Bureau (1976) refers to the Gamo artisans 
as members of a caste group. Previous studies of Omotic societies suggest that 
artisans retain low social positions, generally do not own land or participate in 



83 
political and judicial life, and yet perform important mediating roles as healers, 

messengers, and circumcisors (Cerulli 1956:107-108; Donham 1985:107-1 13; 

Feyissa 1997; Jensen 1959:422-425; Lange 1982:75-77, 158-162, 261-267; Orent 

1969:284-286; Straube 1963:376, 384; Todd 1977b, 1978a, 1978b; Yintso 1995:104- 

109). 

The Gamo artisans are aligned with many of the characteristics listed as 
associated with caste systems in Indian and Africa (Leach 1960; Sterner and David 
1991; Tamari 1991; Tudov and Plotnicov 1970). First, the Gamo social system is a 
rigid social structure in which the different stratums are associated with traditional 
occupations. The Gamo system consists of 1) citizens (mala) or elected and 
hereditary leaders, farmers, and weavers and 2) noncitizens (tsoma) which 
incorporate manalchinasha and degala (Abeles 1979; Bureau 1981:85-87; Straube 
1963:380-384). In Gamo society, potters are usually women and hide-workers, 
groundstone-makers, and smiths are usually men. The mana/chinasha are defined by 
the occupation of women as potters. Often men mana/chinasha own farmland and/or 
help their wives with pottery procurement and distribution. The degala include hide- 
workers (gelba katchay- literally hide scratcher), smiths (wogatchay literally the 
sound of pounding) and groundstone-makers (sucha wogatchay- literally stone 
pounding). 

Second, membership in mala or tsoma is ascribed by birth and there is no 
social mobility. Third, the Gamo believe that if intercourse occurs between the 
different stratified groups, the result will be death and/or infertility. Hence, the mala, 
degala, and mana/chinasha are each endogamous meaning that they do not marry 



84 
one another. Fourth, tsoma are not considered full members of Gamo society and 

during puberty rites (discussed in this chapter below), they are not publicly presented 

to society to acknowledge their full citizen status. 

Fifth, artisans often have a ritual language or argot, which only the artisans 
know. The Gamo degala, including the hide-workers, have their own language 
(owdetso) which is mutually intelligible to all Gamo degala, but is not spoken among 
other ethnic groups. The manalchinasha also have their own language (manacalay), 
which is different from the degala language (owdetso). They state that they have 
their own language to keep their secrets from others, i.e., the mala. They are 
unwilling to teach this language to their neighboring mala or to westerners, and the 
language has yet to be studied thoroughly. The few words and phrases that I 
collected were shared with linguist Christopher Ehret, who suggested that most 
artisan languages were not distinct, but jargon of the local language. 

Lastly, the Gamo reinforce the social submersion of artisans through 
restrictions on commensality and associating artisans with pollution concepts. They 
do not share food with degala (hide-workers, smiths, and groundstone-makers) or 
mana/chinasha (potters) and only allow them into the vestibule area of their 
household (Bureau 1975). The smiths are members of both the degala and mala 
caste groups, because the mala consider iron cast or reheated by degala to be 
polluted and to cause illness for the mala. Mala smiths make the ritual-sacrificing 
knife for animals and for circumcision, as well as the hand plow for the mala. The 
degala work iron products for the degala only. The degala, especially, are not 
allowed to work in the fields of farmers for fear of polluting the crops. The farmers 



85 
consider the hide-worker's scraping stones, unscraped hides, and cattle horns to be 

unclean. Gamo beliefs indicate that use of these items and breaking goma (taboos) 

will disrupt fertility of land and people by upsetting the ancestors. 

The Gamo hide-workers and their materials are symbols of mediation 

between life, fertility, and death in Gamo society. The degala use the same materials 

(stone and cattle products) and skills (cutting and blowing) derived from their 

economic roles to fulfill their ethnic and regional social roles as healers, messengers, 

and circumcisers. The hide-workers perform guchay, a form of healing, for curing 

flesh wounds such as an abscess, insect bite, etc. The artisan is paid 1 to 3 ETB for 

this service or he is paid with crops. The process involves making an incision, if the 

wound is not open, with a razor blade but in the past with a sharp stone flake. He/she 

takes a bovine horn (kula kula) and places it on the wound and sucks through it until 

the horn secures on the wound. He/she leaves the horn on the wound for a sufficient 

time to drain the impurities, pus, infection, and/or blood. The Gamo believe that bad 

spirits and the breaking of goma (taboo) cause illness and injury. It therefore 

requires the intervention of a diviner (maw) who uses animal entrails to reveal the 

origin of the illness. The appropriate rituals are in order to extinguish the effects of 

the violation. The hide-worker's role in this respect is to rid violations associated 

with open wounds (referred to askatcha, which is also means to scrape). The word 

"to divine" in Gamocalay is the same word as for stone "sucha." In the past, the 

hide-workers used stone to aid in clearing the wounds. Although the degala do not 

act as diviners, they are a source for removing goma. The Gamo have a saying: 

"maro essi ayya, degala guta kara. " Translated it means the diviners are never 



86 
fools, the degala' s neighbors are strong. The understanding is that the neighbors of 

the degala are the mala. The impure degala are weak and impure constantly 

breaking taboos. In contrast, the mala are generally pure and strong. The mala must 

be strong and resist breaking taboos, because the diviners are not foolish and can find 

mala sources of breaking taboos. While the Gamo consider the degala to be impure; 

they are necessary to mediate between people and illness and infertility caused by 

breaking goma (taboos). Through guchay, the artisan uses his materials of stone and 

horn to mediate between the pure and the impure. This practice is still common 

today, although pharmacies and western medicines have begun to replace local 

healing practices. 

The artisan also is obliged to blow a bovine horn, often ornamented with 
some leather and the tail of the animal, to announce weddings, funerals, social and 
political meetings (usually held to resolve local problems), and work parties (for 
creating new agricultural fields). The hide-workers prepare the bovine horns for this 
ritual use. If the artisan is requested to blow the horn within his region, he is often 
not paid for this work. The artisans do not mind, because "they want to get along 
with the people," or because they want to keep the land that the people have given 
them. However, they may receive 1 to 5 ETB (US $0.15 to 0.77), if they work 
outside their community. The latter does occur, as artisans do not live in every 
village and subdistrict. Again, the artisan uses products of his work, horns, to 
mediate between life, death, and social disharmony. 

In the past, artisans also performed both male and female (clitorectomy) 
circumcision. The artisan received some food from the ceremony in exchange for 



87 
the operation, but in general was not paid. The hide-workers used a metal knife for 

circumcision. The knife could be used to circumcise more than one individual and 

may be in use for several years. In the distant past, stone rather than iron was used 

for this ceremony. The knife used for a mala circumcision had to be made by or 

reheated by a mala smith, although a mana/chinasha or degala artisan performs the 

circumcision. Both group and individual ceremonies were performed at the mala 

debusha or at the degala debusha. The Gamo puberty rites of passage are similar to 

other systems, and include a period of separation, learning, and reintegration (Van 

Gennep 1960). After circumcision, the household provided the initiate (referred to 

as gatchino, which means being born) with a rich diet of meat and butter, during the 

period of isolation. Then, boys hunted an animal and hung it outside their 

household, as a symbol of their ability to provide for their future family. For the 

next nine months, the initiate did little work and his family fed him, as he 

symbolically proceeded through a period of gestation. All the initiates of the dere 

demonstrated their bond between one another by using the same river to bath in. The 

initiates went into the largest local town presenting themselves to the community 

(sofie) wearing an ostrich feather on their heads, indicating that they were fertile and 

mature. Female initiates did not hunt or participate in a communal bath. 

The Gamo require circumcision before an individual can produce children 

and before a man can become a sacrificer/leader in the community. Degala and 

mana/chinasha initiates are not presented in a sofie ceremony to the community after 

circumcision, which denies them their fertile citizen status within Gamo society. 

This reinforces societal taboos restricting sexual intercourse between degala and 



88 
mana/chinasha with each other and with mala. The implication is that any such 

interaction would be barren and even dangerous because wasting one's own fertility 

upsets the ancestors. Yet, the artisan as a dependent on others and as an impure 

individual orchestrates the circumcision ceremony again acting as mediator by 

instigating rebirth and the subsequent fertility of the initiate. During the socialist 

period, the national government of Ethiopia outlawed local ceremonies marking 

ethnicity and local identities, which undermined the artisan's role in Gamo society. 

Today, many people go to the several clinics scattered sparsely across Gamo territory 

for circumcision (male and female). 

The hide-workers use the same materials (cattle by products such as horns, as 

well as stone) to fulfill their economic roles as leather producers to aid them in 

carrying out their social roles in society including healing, announcing events, and 

circumcision. Hence, the materials they use every day to maintain a livelihood have 

secondary functions within the Gamo social-economic system. Since the technology 

of hide-working is tied to larger social contexts, the variation in the material culture 

of the Gamo hide-workers may rest with the origins of caste formation within Gamo 

society. Among the studies of Omotic societies, there have been two proposals 

concerning the origins of artisans. Haberland's (1984) study of the Dizi suggests that 

an immigration of the Gonga people, who were descendants from northern Christian 

Ethiopia, came upon the Dizi and implemented their caste-structuring system on the 

cultivators and pastoral peoples making ethnically different groups within one 

dominion. In contrast, Todd (1978a) suggests that the origin of caste groups in 

Ethiopia is not a result of their incorporation into host societies. Todd argues that 



89 
craft specialization arises through a process of internal social differentiation. He 

states that smiths produced better tools, which led to a more efficient agriculture that 

in turn enabled the population to support fulltime smiths. Pastoralism and hunting 

provided many skins, and the need for skin shields to protect the chief led to 

specialized hide-workers. In essence, Todd advocates that the development of an 

internal surplus led to the creation of specialization and social differentiation. Oral 

histories and future archaeological work may help to resolve whether or not Gamo 

craft-specialization and their associated tools result from external influences and/or 

internal development. 

Political-ritual positions 

Thirty years ago, Gamo society consisted of ten political districts (deres) 

including the Bonke, Borada, Dita, Doko, Dorze, Kamba, Kogo, Ganta, Ochollo, and 

Zada (Figure 3-3). Each dere is separated from its neighbor by a river or mountain 

ridge. These areas are not typically inhabited and are considered the locations for the 

ancestral spirits (Cartledge 1995:140). In 1976, the Ethiopian government 

reorganized deres into peasant associations and local administrative regions, 

awardjas, to include DitaDaromalo (a combination of the Gamo Dita dere and two 

other ethnic groups Daro and Malo), Kamba, Bonke, Borada- Abaya, Chencha 

(Doko, Dorze, and, Kogo), and Arba Minch (Ganta and Ochollo). Since the 

inception of the new Ethiopian government in 1 990, the Gamo people have worked 

to reinstate their traditional political/ritual structure, which the socialist government 

forbade. Today the Ethiopian national government considers the Gamo people part 



90 



\ BORADA \ 
1 I 


i^ 1 


^ T^ [ KOGO / 

f \ ZADA \\ \ J 


\ DITA \ D0k6/'"V------ / 

\ '< DORZE *--, / 

A ,-\ \'''"~~ nOChollo 7 

/ s ' 


/ ) \ GANTA V 


/ ''' %i y 


\ KAMBA / -*-^ 




| BONKE \/^\ / 

i / \ / 
/ / \. / 

\ ' / 


\ ' / 
\ ' y 
\ ' s^ 

\ ' s^ 

\ : / N 

\ Y A 




\ f 100 200km 
\ / i i > ' ■ 







Figure 3-3: Map of the Gamo deres /districts. 



91 
of the North Omo administrative region of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and 

Peoples Region of Ethiopia, with Arba Minch serving as the administrative center. 

Hereditary positions. Each dere is governed by an elected assemblage of 
dignitaries (dulata) and a Kao who performs ritual sacrifices for the ancestors 
(Abeles 1978; Bureau 1978). The Kao does not hold final authority, but holds 
sacrifices (sprinkling wheat beer and honey and slaughtering an animal) to appease 
the ancestors to ensure plant growth and the continuity of human society (Abeles 
1979; Lange 1982; Strecker 1990). This dual system is characteristic of Omotic 
societies (Feyissa 1997; Lange 1982; Strecker 1990). The position of Kao is 
hereditary within each dere, with a different clan name associated with each Kao. 
Each Kao has his own prescriptions, which are passed down from his father, 
concerning their ritual power to perform sacrifices and protect the community 
against harm (Abeles 1981). In general, only male citizens {mala) may occupy 
sacrificial and dignitary positions, while women and noncitizens (tsoma) are 
excluded. Although previous researchers often translate the position of Kao as king, 
this usage is inappropriate (Abeles 1981; Bureau 1979; Straube 1957, 1963:381). 
Past warfare between different deres indicates that the losing dere did not relinquish 
their land or ritual-political leaders, instead labor was demanded (Abeles 1979; 
Olmstead 1972). There is a contradiction between this tendency toward a centralized 
hegemony and respect of the local political districts demonstrating 

The Gamo artisans do not serve as ritual-sacrificers, however they do play 
important roles in the installation of a new Kao and in the origin stories associated 
with the first ritual-sacrificer. At the installation of the Kao, the artisans (sometimes 



92 
hide-workers) place a silver ring on the Kao and announce the name of the Kao to 

the people (Olmstead 1997:72). In the oral traditions among the Omotic societies of 

Seka, Kafa, and Wolayta, the future ruler/ritual sacrificer often has the original status 

of an occupational group member such as potter, grass cutter, slave, or hunter (Lange 

1976). This undermines the concept of an individual co-opting all power in society. 

Lange (1976) suggests that this indicates a period when society was more democratic 

and that a leader must incorporate all segments of his society. Often this new ritual- 

sacrificer kills a man or a wild beast as a step in achieving his position, which relates 

to the presence of blood sacrifices at the end of the harvest season for the 

rejuvenation of plant and animal life. Bureau (1983) recorded a similar story among 

the Gamo. However, he only offers an interpretation of it in terms of its relationship 

to the Amhara myth of the "Death of the Serpent" and was unable to explain many of 

the crucial (and perhaps Omotic) aspects of the story. Sperber (1977:76-79) 

discusses the story's relation to Oromo myths, in terms of borrowing and mental 

transformations. The story demonstrates that although the Gamo artisans have a low 

social and economic status in society, they are integral to preserving the fertility of 

the community and the appeasement of the ancestors. In short, the story is as 

follows. A father emasculates his son and wrongly accuses him of having sex with 

his stepmother (incest and the breaking of taboo). The father and the wife are so 

poor they must sell millstones and dress in sheepskins (i.e., the boy is the son of 

members of the degala occupational caste, groundstone-makers, hide-workers, and 

smiths). The innocent young man leaves his father's household and meets several 

young women who have been left in the wilderness as a sacrifice to the snakes. The 






93 
young man kills the snakes (blood sacrifice) and becomes ritual-sacrificer (by 

controlling nature and demonstrating his strength). The former ritual-sacrificer hears 

that the young man does not have a penis and forces everyone to wash in the river, so 

that he can examine his new son-in-law. There the young man meets a goddess who 

forms him a new penis out of clay (potters and other artisans often perform 

circumcision and the initiates have to wash in the river as part of their rites of 

passage). He goes on to become a ritual-sacrificer with sons and daughters (because 

he is properly initiated). 

In addition to the position of Kao, there are two other hereditary positions 
among the Gamo, that of Eka and Maka. The Ekas are ritual specialist at the 
neighborhood level, they have final authority on questions regarding traditional laws, 
and they perform sacrifices (Cartledge 1995:98-99). Some Gamo deres also will 
have Makas, who are also ritual leaders that act on a higher level than the Ekas. 

Elected positions. In contrast to the social positions discussed above, the 
Dana, Uduga, and Halaka are elected positions with decision-making power on the 
dere (district), mota (subdistrict), and guta (village) levels, respectively (Abeles 
1978; Cartledge 1995). As previously stated, Bureau (1979) suggests that these 
positions have Amhara origins. Usually these individuals are men, who: 1) do not 
have a surviving father; 2) must be circumcised and married; 3) have no physical 
deformities; and 4) are fairly wealthy, as several feasts are required which serve to 
redistribute resources (Cartledge 1995:81-98; Halprin and Olmstead 1976). Those 
contributing to the feasts with gifts called woitho are drawn from patrilineal kin and 
neighboring friends (Halprin and Olmstead 1976). Attaining the position of Dana, 



94 
Uduga, or Halaka is referred to by their people as catching (Halaka aikos). This 

demonstrates the reluctance of the individual to redistribute their resources through 

feasts. During the rituals involved in their installations, they provide feasts and the 

people believe they positively affect the fertility of the dere and refer to the Halaka 

as the dere's wife (Freeman 1997). Hence, the people catch not only material 

resources but symbolic fertility. The installation rituals involve the sacrificing of a 

black lamb, which the hide-workers make into a cape for the initiate (Cartledge 

1995:81-98). The local smiths make ceremonial staffs and the hide-workers 

announce the presence of the new Dana, Uduga, and Halaka. 

Artisan political roles. The mala do not allow the artisans to participate in 

mala community assemblies or to hold any of the political-ritual positions such as 

Kao, Dana, Maka, or Uduga, because of their association with impurity. However, 

some degala and mana/chinasha have their own separate debusha (meeting places) 

and Halakas (local leaders) to resolve degala and mana/chinasha community issues. 

Although among the mala, the position of Halaka usually represents the village 

community, the Gamo degala tend to have, if any, one Halaka per dere. The mala 

people state that the degala do not have a true Halaka because the degala Halaka 

does not go through sofie (public presentation). Also in contrast to the mala Halaka, 

who holds two feasts at the same time, the degala cannot afford this and so they have 

the feasts at two different times. The first feast is called the "Father's Feeding" and 

it is just for men and is held during the month of Ter (January 9 to February 7) at the 

initiate's house. The second feast is for everyone after Easter and is referred to as 

"Mother's Feeding." The degala must collect these resources through their mayla 



95 

(patron-client) relationship with the mala. The degala Halaka must be the baira 

(elder) of his segmentary lineage and have no married daughters. If an individual 
has no married daughters, he is not giving away any of his fertility. Degala Halakas 
are elected every 1 to 3 years. After the feasts, the Halaka participates in no work 
for nine months. The Gamo believe he is symbolically passing through gestation to 
be reborn (Freeman 1997). During this time the degala Halakas have no 
responsibilities. The degala Halaka like the mala Halaka, does not cut his hair, 
wears a sheep skin cape (zito), and carries the staff (horoso). However unlike the 
mala Halaka, the degala Halaka is not presented to the people in the market place 
(sofie). Since the degala do not go through sofie or public recognition, they never 
become full members of Gamo society and their submerged social status is 
maintained. However, after the nine months have passed, the degala Halaka 
becomes a full elder in degala society, and he can sacrifice and pray for his people, 
arrange marriages, and help solve problems. 
The three Gamo subregions 

The Gamo recognize differences between three subregions of their territory, 
south, central, and north. The presence of the three Gamo subregions and their 
relationships with one another may be important for assessing the distribution and 
types of hide-working material culture (discussed in Chapter 5). The people who 
occupy the northern and southern extremes of the Gamo territory, including the 
Ochollo, Borada, Ganta, Kamba, and Bonke people, view themselves as belonging to 
the Gamo ethnic group, but still insist that they were different from the true "Gamo." 
They referred to the true "Gamo" as the Doko, Kogo, Zada, Dorze, and Dita people, 



96 
who occupy the central highland region of the Gamo territory. Each subregion is 

different in terms of types of local ritual-political leaders and the social roles of 

artisans, which is discussed below. 

The southern Gamo, including the Ganta, Bonke, and Kamba, have one of 
each type of political leader in each dere (Table 3-1). However, they lack the 
position of Maka, which is known in the other two Gamo regions. The southern 
region also uses the word Maga instead of Halaka to describe the ritual-political 
position at the village level. Among the southern Gamo, the potters (generally 
women) and hide-workers (generally male) both belong to the caste group, 
mana/chinasha, and marry one another. The southern Gamo hide-workers are 
responsible for circumcision, healing, and announcements, and they have Halakas. 

Ochollo and Borada are considered northern Gamo because of their shared 
cultural traits, even though geographically the Ochollo are located in the central area 
just to the south of Borada. However, the Ochollo people are the only centrally 
located Gamo people who claim that their ancestors came from the north. The 
northern Gamo region deres do not have the Uduga position or degala or 
mana/chinasha Halakas. Instead, each dere has one Kao, one Dana, one Maka, and 
several mala Halakas (Table 3-2). Among the northern Gamo, the potters and hide- 
workers belong to different caste groups, mana/chinasha and degala respectively. 
Although women are generally potters and men hide-workers, groundstone-makers, 
and smiths, mana/chinasha and degala do not marry. In this instance, there is one 
sex in each caste group who is not an artisan. Among the northern Gamo, the 






97 



mana/chinasha rather than the degala, are responsible for circumcisions, healing, 
and announcing ceremonies and meetings. 



Table 3-1: Gamo subregions and the number of persons holding the different ritual- 
political positions in each. 



Region deres Kao Dana 


Maka 


Uduga 


Halaka 


degala & 










/Maga 


or mana 
Halaka/Maga 


South Ganta 


1 





1 


several 


several 


Bonke 


1 1 





1 


several 


several 


Kamba 


1 





1 


several 


several 


Central Doko ] 





1 


1 


14 


1 


Dorze 


I 


2 





7 


1 


Dita 1 


I 5 





1 


several 


several 


Kogo 1 


I 2 


1 


3 


several 


4 


Zada 


I 5 








several 


several 


North Borada 


1 


1 





several 





()t hollo 


1 


1 





several 












Table 3-2: The subregional roles of artisans. 





South 


Central 


North 


Hide-workers and potters 
belong to the same caste 


yes 


no 


no 


Hide-workers as 
circumcizers, healers, and 
Musicians 


yes 


yes 


No 


Artisan Halakas 


yes 


yes 


No 


Artisans Intermarriage 


With 
central 


With south & 
north 


With central 



The central Gamo share cultural traits with both their southern and northern 
Gamo neighbors (Figure 3-3). The deres (districts) of the central Gamo region 
consisting of the Doko, Kogo, Zada, Dorze, and Dita have a mixture of political 
leaders, some do not have a Maka like the northern Gamo, and some have an Uduga 



98 
like the southern Gamo. This suggests an influence of both northern and southern 

traditions onto the central region. The central Gamo are similar to the northern 

Gamo in that the hide-workers and potters represent different two different caste 

groups. However, the central hide- workers are similar to the southern hide- workers 

because they both perform circumcision, healing, work as musicians, and they have 

Halakas (local leaders). The central Gamo deres each have a different number of 

degala Halakas. The deres of Doko and Dorze each have one degala Halaka. 

Within Kogo there are several degala Halaka positions so that Tsula, Birbir, and 

Dere Chencha each have a degala Halaka and Ezo has two degala Halakas. The 

geographical location of the central Gamo people gives them proximity and easy 

means of interaction and communication with both the southern and northern Gamo. 

Interaction with the northern and southern regions has resulted in shared ideals 

concerning ritual leaders and artisans' roles. 

Caste, dere (district), and subregional membership are important identities in 

the lives of the Gamo hide-workers. Within the Omotic socio-political structure, the 

farmers consider the hide-workers as polluted and as a lower social group. They are 

restricted from eating, living, and reproducing with other members of their society. 

They have no say in local assemblages through which labor, land, and resources of 

the community are controlled. Yet, paradoxically the hide-workers hold important 

social-ritual roles as healers, circumcizers, and messengers, which connect them to 

the fertility of the community. The Omotic systems of socio-political relationships 

suggest that there are many avenues to explore relating variation in social group 

membership to stone tool similarities and differences (i.e., style). 



99 
Intraethnic Kinship Identities 

The Gamo share a social organization with other Omotic societies 
characterized by patrilineal clans with virilocal postmarital residence (Cartledge 
1995:39; Donham 1985:72-95; Olmstead 1974a:3; Orent 1969:97-108, Strecker 
1990; Yintso 1995:23-25). As mentioned in the section above concerning caste 
groups, the stratified social relationships in Gamo society, i.e., membership as mala, 
mana/chinasha, or degala, are ascribed through patrilineal descent. The Gamo have 
over 40 different clan names, and most are represented in all three stratified groups. 
Hence, degala, mana/chinasha, and mala do not have distinct clan memberships. 
For example, the clan Zutuma may have members who are degala, mana/chinasha, 
and mala, as well there is no marriage between these three caste groups or between 
clan members. 

Mala (farmer and citizen) oral history states that the artisans arrived in the 
area after the farmers. Thus, the artisans had no land and were indentured to the 
farmers for food and land. When the farmers gave the artisans land to live on, the 
artisans took the clan name of their patrons. This explains the presence of the same 
clan names for artisans and farmers, and the low social position of artisans. This is 
realized in two of the villages I studied in-depth, Mogesa and Patela. In these 
villages, the hide-workers' households are located closest to mala households that 
share the same clan name, and claim their original patron. 

When I questioned the hide-workers about their origins and their first 
ancestor, they recounted the following verse for me: IKaysay Dara Degala Asha. 
Literally translated, this phrase states; wealthy {dara) priest (Ikaysay), protect me 



100 

aces 



(asha) the impure (degala). So the verse describing the first degala individual pi 
him in his subservient social and economic position within Gamo society through his 
name (i.e., protect me). It also places him in juxtaposition to a pure and wealthy 
individual insinuating that the degala is neither pure nor wealthy. Ideologically this 
restricts any inherent right to resources, and reinforces the patron-client (mayla) 
relationship. The ancestral symbols of the degala bolster their social and economic 
roles in society. In addition, within each caste group, membership in a moiety, clan, 
lineage, and domestic group is important for social identity. The following discusses 
the Gamo hide-workers' kinship relationships in terms of moieties, clans, lineages, 
and domestic groups. 
Moiety 

A dual division segregating clans based upon the presence of an indigenous 
population and a later intrusive group is commonly found in Omotic cultures such as 
the Ari, Hamar, Skekacho, Kore (Straube 1963), Male (Donham 1985), and Kafa 
(Orent 1969:97-108, 1970). Straube (1963) points toward the Nilotic culture as 
introducing the moiety system to southern Omotic cultures. Orent (1970) argues that 
a true moiety system never existed in southwestern Ethiopia because they are 
generally associated with bifurcating merging kinship systems, which operate to 
separate the mother's and father's lineages (Lowie 1928; Murdock 1947). 

Gamo society is partially a generational system with the same terms applied 
to one's father's and mother's parents (myza) and grandparents (myaye). However, 
the Gamo refer to their father's brothers and their sons as brothers (isha). Father's 
brothers' daughters are referred to as sisters (miccho). Members of these generations 



101 
outside their patrilineage are not referred to as brother and sister. Despite the 

absence of a true bifurcate merging system in Gamo society, there is a hint of a 

former moiety system in which they divide clans into two groups mala and dogala. 

It should be made clear that mala clans are not clans in which only mala as a social 

hierarchy belong, but degala and mana/chinasha also are members. The mala clans 

consist of all clan names with the suffix "mala. " Tradition states that they arrived to 

the region after the dogala people. The prefix often denotes the place of origin for 

mala clans: such as Wolayta mala and Daro mala that indicate origins in other Omotic 

societies. Dogala clans lack the "mala" suffix and the Gamo believe they are the 

original inhabitants of the Gamo region. Dogala clans incorporate all other clan 

names including: Zutuma, Masha, Maka, and Goodara, etc. For this reason, the 

Gamo believe that the dogala clans represent individuals, who always lived in the 

Gamo highlands, while mala clan individuals moved in from other areas. There is 

one exception to this dual division of clans, the presence of the Amara clan. 

Individuals belonging to the Amara clan are descendants of the Amhara 

soldiers/settlers, who invaded during the 16th century. This study of hide-workers 

indicates their membership in 32 of the approximately 40-clan names among the 

Gamo. 

Marriage patterns among the Gamo are important for determining the 

extension of their access to resources outside their own village. Although the Gamo 

practice polygny, the hide-workers are not wealthy enough to have more than one 

wife. The hide-workers belong to both the dogala and mala moieties. There is no 

geographic distinction of dogala and mala clans in the Gamo region; rather there is a 



102 
mixture of dogala and mala clans in each dere. This is important because it allows 

individuals to marry within their dere to someone of the opposite moiety (see 

Appendix Table B-l). My kinship study confirms that most hide-workers marry 

individuals within their own dere (Table 3-3). However, in the past, the central 

Gamo hide-workers of Doko, Dorze, Zada, and Kogo tended to more frequently 

marry outside their dere to women from the lowland/northern region (Table 3-3). 

Among the northern Borada hide-workers, there has been a consistent marriage 

pattern within the area both in the past and in the present. I do not have much 

information regarding the kinship patterns of the southern Gamo, but all individuals I 

interviewed married within the region, both in past generations and present. 



Table 3-3: Past and present dere and subregional marriage patterns among hide- 
workers. 



Region 


Dere 


Living: Spouse 
from same Dere 


Deceased: Spouse 
from same Dere 


NORTH 
NORTH 


Borada (n=86) 
Ochollo(n=10) 


74% 
40% 


70% 
47% 


CENTRAL 
CENTRAL 
CENTRAL 
CENTRAL 


Doko (n=100) 
Dorze (n=49) 
Kogo (n=225) 
Zada (n= 100) 


73% 
72% 
60% 
47% 


60% 
45% 
40% 
40% 


SOUTH 


Bonke (n=7 ) 


100% 


100% 



Elders frequently stated that in the past mala and dogala individuals had to 
marry persons belonging to the opposite moiety. Kinship and clan information from 
my survey indicates that today 47 percent (159 of 335) of the hide-workers married 
women within the same moiety; one generation back this same figure was 39 
percent. My study of Gamo marriage practices in the villages of Mogesa Shongalay, 



103 
Eeyahoo Shongalay, Amure Dembe Chileshe, and Patela Tsela is summarized in 

Table 3-4. It indicates that the marriage pattern between moieties generally holds 

true. The Mogesa Shongalay hide-workers belong to the Gezemala clan of the mala 

moiety and married women of the dogala moiety. In the village of Patela Tsela, the 

hide-workers belong to the Zutuma clan of the dogala moiety and marry women of 

the Amara clan and of the mala moiety clans. The Amara are not considered 

members of the dogala or the mala, as they represent a population descended from or 

enslaved to the Amhara invaders in the late nineteenth century. Two different clans 

represent the Eeyahoo Shongalay hide-workers: Gezemala and Bolosa. The 

Gezemala hide-worker married a woman of his same clan, Gezemala. This is 

extremely rare 1 . However, the dogala Bolosa individuals married into the mala clan. 

The only village, which did not fit this moiety pattern, was Amure Dembe Chileshe 

where hide-workers belong to the Maagata clan of the dogala moiety and marry 

women mostly from the same moiety. 

Among the hide-workers living in Borada, Kogo, Doko, Dorze, Zada, and 

Ochollo, there are fewer living hide-workers who belong to the mala moiety (37 

percent n=206) than the dogala moiety (63 percent n=347). Since the Gamo 

perceive the members of the dogala moiety as the original inhabitants of the Gamo 

territory, they may own more land and wealth than people of the mala moiety. If the 

latter were true, the dogala would have been in a better position to offer land-labor 

exchange relationships with artisans, thus creating more artisans in the dogala 

moiety. If mala individuals are migrants from other areas, it is likely that they would 



1 . He actually gave a different clan name for his wife, but I know the patrilineage she is from and 
knew the correct clan name. 



104 



be more restricted in the types of resources available to them, which might create 
differences in mala and dogala stone tools. Since the clans of the mala moiety are 
considered foreigners, there may be little communication and transmission of ideas 
between the two moieties. Although men marry women from an opposite moiety, 
men learn hide- working from their fathers. Even if they obtain resources through 
their wives, the final products resemble their father's work rather than that of their 
fathers-in-law. Hence, the expected relationship is that scrapers will reflect 
differences in moiety membership. 



Table 3-4: Cross-moiety marriage patterns for hide-workers in the villages of 
Mogesa, Patela, Eeyahoo, and Amure. 



Village 


Husband's 
Moiety 


Husband's 
Clans 


Wife's 
Moiety 


Wife's 
Clan 


Mogesa 


Mala 


Gezemala 


Dogala 


Maagata, Maka, 

Zutuma 

Damota 


Patela 


Dogala 


Zutuma 


Mala 
Amara 


Dalomala, 
Gezemala 
Amara 


Eeyahoo 


Mala 
Dogala 


Gezemala 
Bolosa 


Mala 
Mala 
Dogala 


Gezemala 
Gezemala 
Goodara 


Amure 


Dogala 


Maagata 


Dogala 
Amara 
Mala 


Masha, Zutuma 
Zamanay, Amara, 
Gezemala 



Clans and lineages 

Generally, individuals, including hide-workers, cannot marry members of 
their own patrilineage or that of their mother's (Olmstead 1974a:3 1-32). Children 
take the clan name of their father, and in addition, a child's second name is the same 



105 
as the father's first name. For instance a child named Calche, whose father's first 

name is Buta, will be called Calche Buta. Since residential patterns are virilocal, 

each village consists of clusters of several segmentary lineages. 

Hide-workers living in one village belong to one patrilineage, and state that 
their ancestors have lived in that particular village for all the generations. The men 
could recite back five to eight generations. In my survey of 588 living hide-workers, 
only 68 individuals or 12 percent have moved to another village. This contrasts with 
information on 555 deceased hide-workers in which only five individuals or 0.9 
percent had moved to another village. In ninety-three percent of the villages, the 
hide-workers were members of a single lineage. Villages with two hide-worker 
lineages were less common at seven percent. This disputes the claim by the mala 
farmers that artisans are constant wanderers. Although some hide-workers do move, 
my research indicates that this is a very low percentage. Even though a low 
percentage of hide-workers move to a new village, it is enough to disrupt a clear 
association between village and clan membership (see Appendix Table B-l). In 
most instances, I was able to determine how segmentary lineages of hide-workers 
living in different villages are related to one another, and that the migration had 
occurred within the last thirty years with the redistribution of land. However, there 
are also some instances in which the relationships were too distant to be 
remembered. Therefore, since hide-working is learned from fathers, I expect that 
scraper morphology will reflect lineage and clan membership. 

Among the Gamo, patrilineage and clan membership are important for access 
to land, ensuring the health of land, animals and people through association with the 



106 
ancestors and ritual sacrifices, and also in terms of access to political-ritual power 

(Donham 1985; Orent 1969:97-108; Olmstead 1974a:24-30, 1975b). Each lineage 

has a series of bairas (seniors), who perform sacrifices for other lineage members 

(getha) (Sperber 1975, 1977:59-62). Baira is inherited according to strict 

genealogical seniority. Each lineage has a senior, onto baira, and a household 

senior, ketsa baira (Olmstead 1974a:26). A son can only become household baira 

after his father is dead. The eldest son inherits his father's household, property, 

fields, and animals. He makes the sacrifices of grain and milk to the ancestors. The 

hide-worker's sons also inherit handles and the stone quarry. The younger sons must 

share the small plot of land with their elder brothers or acquire land from a patron. If 

the father has farmland, the younger sons will live in a household built on that land 

rather than next to the father's house. The father and his patrilineage are important 

for the transmission of information and skills related to hide-working. Younger 

brothers become bairas of their own descent groups in separate households usually 

after the older brother dies and his sons take over a segmented descent group. 

Although baira is usually in relationship to genealogical relationships within a clan, 

outside the clan relations it is based on the source of fertility. For instance, in several 

Omotic societies, including the Gamo, when a man and woman marry, the woman's 

patrilineage as the source for fertility is considered baira to the groom's patrilineage 

(Donham 1997:108; Freeman 1997; Orent 1969:158). The bride's father expects the 

son-in-law to help with agricultural work. Thus, the relationship involves tribute 

labor, as well as respect. 



107 
There is a hierarchical relationship between wife-givers and wife-takers in 

Gamo society, and a permanent ranking of houses/clans is possible if the women 
from the same house/clan always married men of the same house/clan (Donham 
1990; Freeman 1997). The husband's lineage is indebted to the wife's lineage, if the 
union results in the birth of children. The Gamo consider the wife's lineage as the 
source of potential fertility, which the husband's lineage activates. Having produced 
descendants, the wife's lineage is revered as a fertile one, and marriage between the 
lineages may be repeated to reinforce the relationship. If hide-workers do marry 
women of the same lineage as their mothers, then they may establish a stable 
resource base through kinship relationships. However, my study of Gamo hide- 
worker kinship does not support the presence of a stable alliance system. I was able 
to obtain knowledge of the clan name of both the mother and wife for only 1 13 of the 
180 hide-workers interviewed. My study indicates that 72 percent (n=81) did not 
marry women sharing the same patrilineage as their mother and 28 percent (n=32) 
did. Only 4 of 32 individuals (1.3 percent), who married women of the same clan as 
their mother, married them from the same lineage. 

For more reliable information, I also examined this relationship in the four 
villages I studied in-depth, Mogesa, Eeyahoo, Patela, and Amure. These hide- 
workers did not marry women of their mother's patrilineage (see Appendix Table B- 
2). Interestingly, the hide-workers of two of the villages tended to marry women 
from another environmental zone. For instance, the lowland villages of Eeyahoo 
Shongalay and Amure Dembe Chileshe married women from the highland 
subdistricts of Leesha and Ezo (Figure 3-3). In addition, the marriages of the 



108 




Figure 3-3: Map of mota/subdistricts for marriage relationships of Mogesa Shongalay, 
Eeyahoo Shongalay, Amure Dembe Chileshe, and Patela Tsela. Underlined names 
are discussed in text and the others are referred to in the Appendix Table B-2). 



109 
Eeyahoo hide-workers' sisters served to help them relocate to that village. 

Originally, the Eeyahoo Shongalay hide-workers are from another subdistrict and 
district. The sisters married degala from Shongalay. The fact that their sisters were 
married to men in the Shongalay mota (subdistrict) probably aided these Bolosa 
hide-workers in obtaining their residence in Shongalay. The other Eeyahoo hide- 
worker has a sister who married an Eeyahoo Shongalay smith. This sister, who lived 
in Eeyahoo, raised him, although he is originally from Ezo Gulay Tzabo. Thus, this 
study of hide-worker kinship relationships suggest that there is not a hierarchical 
relationship between different patrilineal clans based on wife-givers and wife-takers, 
since most hide-workers marry into different lineages than that of their mothers. 
However, hide-workers do utilize marriage relationships to gain access to land in 
other subregions and perhaps even hide-working resources, which I will explore in 
Chapter 5. 

The Gamo also practice junior leveriate, referred to as lata. The younger 
brother is responsible for his older brother's wife and children, if the older brother 
dies. In the four villages, I have clan information for eleven sets of brothers, and of 
these, five married women of the same clan as their brother but from different 
lineages. Clearly, the Gamo practice leniency concerning marrying into the same 
clan as a brother, however none married the sister of their brother's wife or into the 
same lineage. 



110 
Domestic groups 

Hide-working skills are learned within the village context through 
observation and direct prompting by fathers, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, and older 
brothers. Hide-workers begin to learn to scrape hides at twelve or thirteen years of 
age. When the hide-worker takes a break from scraping the hide, often his son will 
try to scrape the hide himself. However, they do not begin producing their own 
scrapers until they marry. Before this time, a young man may scrape a hide, but it is 
with scrapers made by his father or older brother. Since postmarital residence is 
virilocal, the new household is established right next to the father's. Fathers and sons 
travel to quarries together and the young hide-worker learns, through observation, 
which pieces are suitable for making scrapers. Fathers often oversee the production 
of scrapers by their sons, provide guidance, and even aid them in shaping and 
resharpening the scraper. Since sons learn the craft of hide-working from their 
fathers and elders, I did not expect that individual expression in the stone scrapers 
would be strong. 

The hide-workers in the villages of Mogesa, Amure, and Patela (see Chapter 
2, Figure 2-2 for map) are each members of a single patrilineage. The hide-workers 
living in Eeyahoo have all moved there recently from Kogo and represent two 
different lineages. Below I review in each of the villages, the learning relationships 
and years of experience for each hide-worker, to set the background information 
concerning the intravillage similarities and differences in handle and scraper form. 

Mogesa. In Mogesa, there are three domestic and learning groups: 1) Buta, 
Tesfy, and Goa; 2) Mokano, Mola, and Yonja; and 3) Yeka. The Mogesa hide- 



Ill 

workers all belong to one clan, Gezemala, and are descendants of Gagra Cala. They 
live in a cluster of households on the southern edge of the village. The three eldest 
hide-workers Buta, Mokano, and Yeka are the descendants of three brothers (see 
Appendix Figure A-l and A-2). Buta has made scrapers and scraped hides for thirty 
years, Mokano for twenty years, and Yeka for thirty-five years. Each of these hide- 
workers has a set of three zucano (double-hafted mastic) handles, which they share 
with younger members of the village. 

Buta has two sons, Tesfy and Goa, whom he taught hide scraping and who 
use his handles (see Appendix Figure A-l). Subsequently, Tesfy has made his own 
scrapers starting eight years ago and Goa for two years. At the end of my stay in 
Mogesa, Tesfy had purchased three handles from his cousin, who no longer scraped 
hides. He never used these handles while I was there, preferring to continue to use 
his fathers. 

Mokano has one son, Mola, whom he taught hide-working and with whom he 
shares his handles (see Appendix Figure A-2). Mola has made scrapers for five 
years. Mokano also taught Yonja (a cousin) how to make scrapers and scrape hides, 
as Yonja' s father died before he had taught him. Yonja has only made scrapers for 
four years, and has two brothers who farm. Yeka is Yonja' s uncle and Mokano is a 
third-cousin, yet Mokano is younger and spent the time to teach Yonja (see 
Appendix Figure A-3-4). Yeka, although he is older than Mokano, has no adult sons 
whom he has taught to scrape hides. Yeka's oldest married son chose to farm rather 
than scrape hides. 






112 
Amure. In Amure, there are three domestic and learning groups: 1) Gabre, 

Gamana, Galche, and Mardos; 2) Chamo and Hagay; and 3) Hanicha, Osha, and 

Bedala. The Amure hide-workers all belong to the clan Maagata descended from 

Yella. The two eldest living hide-workers, Hanicha and Gabre, are the descendants 

of two brothers, Mara Yella and Asa Yella. 

Mara Yella had two sons: Maze and Goba, whose descendants form two 
descent and learning groups 1 ) Gabre, Gamana, Galche, and Mardos (see Appendix 
Figure A-3) and 2) Hagay and Chamo (see Appendix Figure A-4). Gabre is too old 
and no longer scrapes hides. He has one son, Gamana, whom he taught and who 
uses his handles. Gamana has been knapping for thirty-five years. Galche is Gabre's 
nephew. Galche learned how to make scrapers from his own father, who is now 
deceased, and uses his father's handles. He also learned how to make scrapers 
approximately five years ago. Mardos is distantly related to Gabre, Gamana, and 
Galche through Maze Mara, Mardos's great-great grandfather. Mardos is learning 
how to make scrapers from both Galche and another village hide-worker, Bedala. 

Hagay and Chamo represent a second domestic group descended from Mara 
Yella (see Appendix Figure A-4). They are brothers who learned how to make 
scrapers from their father, who is deceased, and they each have their own handles. 
Hagay is almost blind due to an untreated eye infection, which may prove to affect 
his scraper production and use. Hagay has been making scrapers for at least twenty 
years and Chamo for about eight years. 

The descendants of Asa Yella form the third domestic and learning group in 
Amure and include: Hanicha, Osha, and Bedala (see Appendix Figure A-5). Hanicha 



113 
has one son, Osha, whom he taught hide scraping. Osha has been making his own 

scrapers for seven years and uses two handles, which were his father's. Hanicha also 

taught his nephew, Bedala, how to make scrapers, but Bedala uses his own father's 

handles. Bedala has been scraping for only five years. Bedala shares handles with 

Mardos, though he is more closely related to Galche. 

Patela. In Patela, there are five domestic and learning groups: 1) Garcho, 
Garafay, and Uma; 2) Darsa, Garbo, and Gaga; 3) Tsoma; 4) Gimay, Tina, and 
Tinko; and 5) Arka, Unkay, Abata, and Basa. The Patela hide-workers are 
descended from Wogaysa Lokay of the Zutuma clan. Garcho and Gimay are the 
oldest living hide-workers in the village; they are the descendants of two brothers, 
Gatelo Wogaysa and Gasamo Wogaysa. Their brother Daso Wogaysa has left a 
lineage with only one living direct descendant, Tsoma Conday. The Patela hide- 
workers each make their own handles for hafting their scrapers. 

Gatelo Wogaysa had two sons, Gaso and Galgo, whose descendants form two 
domestic groups: 1) Garcho, Garafay, and Uma and 2) Darsa, Garbo and Gaga (see 
Appendix Figure A-6). Garcho no longer scrapes hides but is still making scrapers 
for one of his sons, Garafay. Garafay is learning how to scrape, but does not yet 
know how to make scrapers. Garcho also taught his elder son Uma, how to knap 
three years ago. Darsa, Garbo, and Gaga are brothers, who are distantly related to 
Garcho and Uma. Darsa and Garbo learned to scrape hides from their father who is 
now deceased. Gaga is learning to knap from Darsa. Darsa has been knapping for 
approximately twenty years, Garbo for nine years, and Gaga for three years. 



114 
As stated above, Daso Wogaysa has only one direct living male descendant, 

Tsoma Conday (see Appendix Figure A-7). Tsoma learned how to make scrapers 

from his father, who is now deceased. Tsoma has been knapping for six years. 

Gasamo Wogaysa had two sons, Gaza and Gelo, whose descendants form 
two domestic groups: 1) Gimay, Tina, and Tinko (see Appendix Figure A-8) and 2) 
Unkay, Arka, Abata, and Basa (see Appendix Figure A-9). Gimay no longer 
produces scrapers or scrapes hides. Gimay has two sons, Tina and Tinko, whom he 
taught the craft. Tina had been knapping for twelve years and Tinko for seven years. 
Arka and Unkay are brothers, who learned how to scrape hides from their father, 
who is now deceased. Arka has been making scrapers for approximately thirty years 
and Unkay for nine years. Arka has one son, Abata, and a cousin, Basa, whom he 
taught how to scrape hides. Abata has been knapping for three years and Basa for 
ten years. 

Eeyahoo. In Eeyahoo, there are two lineages of hide-workers 1 ) Amaylo and 
Awesto and 2) Arka. As stated previously, the three hide-workers living in Eeyahoo 
recently moved there from Ezo and do not live close to one another. In addition, 
each of these individuals makes his own handle rather than inheriting the handle of 
his father. Amaylo and Awesto are brothers, who moved to Eeyahoo from Ezo Waro 
(see Appendix Figure A-3-10). Amaylo (in his late 20s) learned to make scrapers 
approximately nine years ago from his father. Awesto learned to make scrapers from 
his father approximately seven years ago. A third hide-worker living in Eeyahoo is 
Arba, who also is in his early twenties. Arba learned hide-working from his father, 
who lived in Ezo Gulay and who is now deceased (see Appendix Figure A- 11). 



115 
Although detailed, the learning and domestic relationships, as well as the 

hide-working experience of individuals living in the four villages provides a basis for 

understanding learning groups, spatial analysis, and variation in intravillage scraper 

morphology. Understanding the years of experience and ages of the hide-workers 

may also be valuable when deciphering standardization in form and breakage rates of 

scrapers. 

Before my own research there was no evidence concerning Ethiopian or 
Gamo artisan kinship relationships, inheritance, and residence patterns. Establishing 
these types of social relationships is important for attempting to understand learning 
groups and the transfer of material culture and resources through different 
generations. The Gamo are a patrilineal virilocal society whose social relationships 
depend strongly on their "brothers" or "ishas" within the moiety-clan kinship 
organization. Even within their kinship lineage, the ancestral symbols of degala and 
mala are contrasted, reminding the artisans of their subservient social and economic 
roles within the wider Gamo society. In essence, because of the combined 
prohibitions on marriage between mala, mana/chinasha, and degala and the goma 
(taboos), which prevent degala from farming fields as sources of pollution, 
individuals are locked into occupational groups. The Gamo hide-workers learn their 
craft from their fathers and so their associated material culture should reflect their 
membership in patrilineal descent groups, including moieties, clans, lineages, and 
domestic groups. 

In summary, this section has reviewed the Gamo social relationships 
including interethnic, intraethnic socio-political (caste, dere, subregion), and kinship 



116 
(moiety, clans, lineages, and individual) relationships. Among the Gamo, there are 
many avenues to explore relating stone tool variation to social relationships. The 
Gamo place importance on their membership within an ethnic group, as well as their 
membership in particular castes, political districts, subregions, moieties, clans, 
lineages, and domestic groups. My hypothesis is that stone tool variation also will 
reflect these identities, which will be tested in Chapters 5, 6, and 7. 

Discussion 

This review of Gamo economic, social, and political life provides the 
background information necessary for assessing variation in the hide-workers' stone 
tools in the following chapters. As members of a caste group in Gamo society, the 
hide-workers are limited in their access to specific types of material culture, stones 
and hides, which are otherwise discarded or ignored by the rest of Gamo society. 
Yet, the hide-workers use these products to make items useful to the rest of society, 
and they use them in their mediating social roles as circumcisers, messengers, and 
healers. Where they live and their social-political relationships (i.e., political 
districts and subregion) determine the types of stone, hides, and wood used in their 
practices. They learn hide-working from their fathers and membership in a particular 
moiety, clan, and lineage is significantly important to them. Hence, there are 
multiple issues to investigate concerning the social and economic representations 
behind stone tool variation among the Gamo. 



CHAPTER 4 

REGIONAL RESOURCE AVAILABILITY: THE EFFECT ON GAMO 

HIDE-WORKING PRACTICES AND MATERIAL CULTURE 



Many archaeologists believe that stone tool variation is the result of 
dissimilarity in procurement strategies and the activities in which tools are used, which 
in turn are spurred by differences in environment and resources (Ammerman and 
Feldman 1974; Binford 1962; Dunnell 1978; Mellars 1970; Odell 1981; Shott 1989). 
Gamo stone tools seemingly are used for only one function — to scrape cattle hides. 
Yet, the Gamo live in diverse lowland and highland environments to the west of Lakes 
Abaya and Chamo. This diversity in Gamo geography presents avenues for variation 
in the Gamo hide-working process. This chapter examines regional patterns in Gamo 
hide-working, including: 1) the types of raw material resources available (obsidian, 
chert, glass, and iron); 2) procurement strategies (indirect and direct); 3) available 
technologies (direct percussion with different sized iron billets); 4) arboreal resources 
for hafting (highland and lowland); 5) tool flexibility and versatility (use on highland 
and lowland hides); 6) time allocation (differences in the reduction of hide thickness); 
7) different activities used to reduce the hides (scraping and chopping); and 8) uselife, 
longevity or curation (changes from blanks, unused and used-up scrapers). The 
analysis of the Gamo scrapers indicates that there are discernable differences in stone 
tools based on different activities. 



117 



118 
Hide-Working Technology 

Stone Procurement and Scraper Production 

Each Gamo hide- worker procures his own raw material, produces his own 
scrapers, and uses his own scrapers. The stone scrapers have no secondary uses, 
though I occasionally saw children playing with discarded scrapers. Sometimes 
individuals who share handles (such as fathers, sons, uncles, and nephews) will use a 
scraper that is already hafted and has been partially used by another individual. 
Furthermore, younger and less proficient individuals will seek help in shaping and 
resharpening scrapers from older and more experienced hide-workers. Shaped 
scrapers are not sold or traded at markets, but stay within village use. 

The Gamo hide-workers use iron, glass, chert, quartzite, and obsidian to scrape 
hides. The Ganta and Kamba hide-workers use iron (Figure 4-1), although some 
Ganta hide-workers also use glass and some Kamba hide-workers use chert. Currently 
the Dorze, Doko, Dita, Kogo, and Zada hide-workers predominately use glass. 
Among the Gamo (not including those who use iron), approximately 70 percent of 
hide-workers are using glass, while only 30 percent are using stone exclusively. The 
hide-workers prefer Ambo (mineral water bottles) or alcohol bottle glass. Glass was 
introduced into the south during the Italian occupation of Ethiopia (1935 to 1941), but 
its use among hide-workers did not become prevalent until the socialist government. 
As previously discussed, since the onset of the socialist government in Ethiopia circa 
1974, hide-working is in less demand because of an increased presence of western 



119 









BORADA Lx^~X 
Chert \ 


KOGO 
Glass\ 

f """TzADA 

( \ Glass 
DITA * Chert 


J^X DOKO I 

i *\ .Glass I 

\\ Jk dorze / 

\^--y/_ Glass / 

-V'' i ^-- / 


/^ f'\ 


\,- ^--.ochollo 7 

; --.Chert / 


/ \ V '-- 
/ v ' 


GANTA V 


/ KAMBA 


Iron \ 
Glass y 




/ Iron 

1 Ch6rt / BONKE ! 
; Chert / 

/ / 
i / 
i / 

\ ' / 




\ ' y 
\ ' s — 

\ ' s 

\ ' / 

\ ' s 


N 

A 




\ / o 

\ / ' ' 


100 200km 
■ i i 









Figure 4-1: Map of the Gamo territory indicating the types of scraping materials used 
in each political district (dere). 



120 
goods and the redistribution of land. The hide-workers who use glass state that they 
prefer to use stone because it does not tear the hides as easily. However, they use 
glass because it is easier to obtain and it is no longer worth their effort to travel long 
distances to procure stone resources because of the reduction in demand for scraped 
hides. Glass is replacing chert and obsidian more quickly in areas where hide-workers 
had obtained stone through the market system. Only one man in Kogo used quartzite, 
because he can no longer purchase chert at the markets with the drop in demand. He 
is an elderly man, who seldom goes to the market and lives within a 1 5-minute walk of 
the quartzite source. The source is very small and the other local hide-workers claim 
that the quartzite is very poor for achieving a sharp edge and so they would rather use 
glass than quartzite. 

Thirty years ago the Doko, Dita, Kogo, and Zada hide-workers obtained stone 
at the Kogo Ezo market. Birbir hide-workers brought the chert to sell at the Ezo 
market. Today, a few hide-workers still purchase chert at the market, and it costs 3 
ETB for one chunk, approximately 15 by 15 cm in size. In contrast, bottle glass costs 
them nothing as they simply pick up pieces of broken glass that they see on the 
ground, especially in the town areas, where the markets are located. Hide-workers 
usually visit the markets that are reachable in a day. However, they will stay the night 
with local degala if the market is too far for return in one day. The major Gamo 
markets are located in the towns of Bonke, Belta, Kamba, Arba Minch, Bodo (Dorze), 
Tuka (Chencha town), Hamusa (Ezo), Pango (Doko Mesho), Zada, Dita, Kodo, Wacha 
(in Kucha), Wadjifo, Chileshe (Sayno), and Zephene (Figure 4-2). The markets have 



121 





i_ 



N 

A 

8 



16 km 




Figure 4-2: Map locating the Gamo markets and chert sources. 



122 
an average distance of 7.5 km between them (Forester, 1969; Jackson et al. 1969; 
Jackson 1971). 

Currently the hide-workers who collect their own chert directly from the 
source do not pay anyone for it. Although in Dorze, Kogo, and Zada there are hide- 
workers who continue to use chert (usually elderly hide-workers who live close to a 
source), it is the hide-workers in Ochollo, Bonke, and Borada who use chert and 
obsidian to the exclusion of glass for their scrapers (Figure 4-2). The latter live within 
a one to six-hour walk of their source. The Ochollo use a source located on the Baso 
River, approximately a two to three-hour walk (Dabay and Daho). There is also only 
one known source in southern Bonke at Zargola that is used by all the Bonke hide- 
workers. In contrast, there are many sources of chert in Borada (e.g., Bobay, 
Bookaria, Cara, Chilamany River, Derara, Dugana, Godaro, Gonkelyo, Guyo, Halay 
Mountain, Losamay River, Olay, Shalatalo, Shorto, and Tuscgamo) and the hide- 
workers collect it themselves. In the past, obsidian was traded down from Wolayta 
through the market systems, and today those who use obsidian find it in agricultural 
fields that are likely archaeological sites 1 . 

Three of the villages I studied in-depth are located in Borada and one in Zada 
(see Chapter 2, Figure 2-2). The Mogesa, Amure, and Patela hide-workers use sources 
exploited by their ancestors, which they do not share with others. The Mogesa Borada 
hide-workers have two chert sources located along the Kendala River, Olay and 
Derara, which are within a ten minute walk from one another along the same river 
branch. The Amure Borada hide-workers procure stone from two chert sources, Guyo 



Unfortunately, there have been no geological surveys in the region for sources of chert and obsidian. 



123 
and Tuscgamo, along the Bobe River. In Eeyahoo Borada, the hide-workers use two 
different sources. Until thirty to forty years ago, there were no hide-workers living in 
Eeyahoo. The first hide-worker to move to Eeyahoo Borada discovered his own 
source of chert but refused to share it with the other hide-workers who later moved 
into the village. This is common, as in all the villages I visited the hide-workers stated 
that they did not and would not share their stone quarry with others. One of the hide- 
workers, who moved to Eeyahoo circa nine years ago, searched the area and found his 
own source, which he now shares with his brother and another hide-worker. This 
source is on a branch of the Etolo River, called Shorto. As far as they know, no else 
uses the source. The Patela Zada hide-workers obtain their chert from a source in 
Kucha called Godaro located on a branch of the Guzeme River. 

The hide-workers go to the quarry after it rains and search the riverbanks for a 
suitable piece of material by simply walking along the streambed and up the sides of 
the riverbank. Pieces of raw material or nodules range in size from 10 by 10 cm to 40 
by 40 cm. The large pieces are broken, using several methods. Some hide-workers 
break up the nodules by placing large rocks underneath for balance and stability. They 
throw a larger rock on it from a standing position. Others sit on the ground with the 
raw material on the ground between the legs and, taking a large rock in both hands, hit 
the raw material to break it up. Hide-workers also use the bottom edge of a large iron 
hoe/iron billet to strike at the raw material, usually along an edge where there is 
exposed chert. The large iron billets average 25 to 30 cm in length, 6 to 10 cm in 
width, and 1 to 7 cm in thickness (distal to proximal end). Once the piece is small 
enough to easily hold in the hand (approximately 12 by 12-cm), the hide-worker uses a 



124 
smaller iron billet to remove flakes for potential scrapers either at the quarry or at the 
household. Each individual has his own small shaping/sharpening iron billet; the 
average size is 12.5 cm in length, 5 cm in breadth, and 0.35 cm in distal thickness 
(Figure 4-3). Often the hide-worker strikes lightly at the edge, preparing the platform 
for removal of the flake. Continued percussion flaking from the nodule in multiple 
directions removes the flakes. The hide-workers select flakes that will not break 
easily (i.e., are not too thin) and have little patina or cortex (which makes for a dull 
edge), but which they believe has an edge which is sharp (i.e., thin) enough to scrape a 
hide. They usually select two to three flakes from a nodule as good. 

Some of the hide-workers rotate the flake between their fingers shaping all 
edges, while others do very little shaping of the scraper. If the flake is shaped, it is 
held with the dorsal side to the palm of the hand and the thumb over the ventral side. 
They use the flattened end of a small iron billet to reduce the flake, shaping and/or 
sharpening it into a scraper through direct percussion. Generally by the time the blank 
is shaped there is virtually no sign of the original platform, which is usually shattered 
on impact. I did not attempt to count, measure, or collect production waste materials; 
this is itself a project that would require fulltime research. The average nodule kept in 
a household cache is six by 5 cm in size. The average number of flakes or blanks 
discovered in the caches was eleven, with a range from one to thirty-five. 

The Gamo hide-workers refer to chert as goshay and obsidian as salloa. The 
word for stone in Gamocalay is sucha, so goshay is a unique name applied by the 
hide-workers to the stones they use to scrape hides. They do not have distinct names 
for cores and blanks, but simply referred them as goshay or salloa. However, 



125 



edge used ^ 

for shaping 




5 cm 



Figure 4-3: Illustration of a Gamo iron billet used to shape stone tools. 



126 
unused scrapers were called oratay (young or new) goshay and used-up scrapers 
chima (old or wise) goshay. They may also refer to the resharpening waste and 
production waste as chancha and to producing scrapers as tekata. To put a scraper in 
a haft is referred to as wotza. These words have no other meaning in Gamocalay. 

They have specific names for the different parts of the scraper, as illustrated 
below (Figure 4-4). The dorsal side is referred to as the back (zoco), the ventral side 
as stomach (ulo), the laterals as the sides (gata), the proximal as the anus (dulea), and 
the working edge as the eye (iffee). That human body parts are ascribed to the scraper 
is interesting in light of the hide-workers' role as mediators of life and fertility in 
Gamo society. The hide-workers perform circumcision (referred to as katsaro) on the 
Gamo people, which makes them fertile and adult members of society. In the past, 
circumcision was performed using a stone knife, but today they use iron. Similarly, 
the hide-worker through his shaping and use of stone to scrape the hide (katcha) 
renders the stone into an effective/fertile tool. 

Hafting 

The Gamo hide-workers use two different handle types to haft their stone tools 
for scraping hides. As previously stated in Chapter 1 , some of the Gamo people today 
use a zucano handle with a carved central opening in a thick piece of wood forming an 
open oval shaped handle (Figure 4-5). The handle accommodates one scraper on 
either side. Tree resin holds the scraper in the closed-socket. The hide-workers 
collect mastic from the tree using a thin stick to dig it out of the trunk. They heat the 
mastic in a broken piece of pottery in an open field. When initially heated the resin 



127 



iffee 




gata 



2 
_L 



4 cm 



Figure 4-4: Illustration of a Gamo scraper with emic names. 






128 
sparks and could catch a thatched roof on fire, and so mastic is not made within 
the household. The hide-worker uses a stick to place the resin in the socket. The 
mastic is made malleable by heating it next to a hearth, and then the scraper is inserted 
and adjusted to the proper angle (~ 90 degrees to the haft) for scraping. The Gamo 
also use another handle type for scraping hides, referred to as a tutuma. It is a tubular- 
shaped piece of wood, which is split open in one end to accommodate a single scraper. 
The end of the scraper is wrapped in a piece of cloth or hide shaving or wedged with a 
piece of wood and inserted into the split end of a wooden handle. Rope rather than 
mastic is used to secure the scraper into the open-socket (-90 degrees to the haft). 

Each of the three Gamo subregions (north, central, and south) uses different 
handle types. The southernmost Gamo regions (Kamba, Bonke, and Ganta) have only 
used the tutuma handle (Figure 4-6). This handle type was used to scrape cattle, 
sheep, and goat hides. In contrast, in the northern region (Borada and Ochollo) the 
hide-workers used only a zucano handle in the past to scrape cattle, sheep, and goat 
hides. I place Ochollo in the northern region with Borada, although technically 
Ochollo is located to the south of Borada and is rather central, because it shares many 
cultural features with Borada (discussed in Chapter 4). However, among the central 
Gamo (Dita, Doko, Dorze, Kogo, and Zada) oral history revealed that until about 
thirty years ago everyone used both a zucano and a tutuma handle. In the past, zucano 
handles were used to scrape cattle hides and tutuma handles were used to scrape goat 
and sheep hides. The hide- workers claimed that they do not know why their ancestors 
used both handle types— it was simply woga (culture). 

Today, both handle types are used to scrape only cattle hides. Currently goat 



129 




double haft 
Zucano 




40 cm 



30 



20 



10 







Single haft 
Zucano 



Central 
Tutu ma 



Southern 
Tutu ma 



Figure 4-5: Illustration of Gamo zucano and tutuma handles. 



130 
and sheep hides are rarely scraped among most Gamo people. As discussed earlier, 
the import of western products and the increased export of goat hides means that there 
are fewer uses for scraped hides in Gamo society. This is especially true of sheep and 
goat hides that were used for clothing and agricultural sacks in the past. Based on the 
functional differences expressed by the elders, one would assume that tutuma handles, 
which previously were used to scrape goat and sheep hides, would no longer be in use 
today among the central Gamo. However, the current distribution of handle types 
suggests continued tutuma use among the central and southern hide-workers, and 
zucano use among the northern hide-workers (Figure 4-6). 

Informants state that the resources used to make and use a zucano handle are 
located in a restricted area— the lowlands (baso), while the tutuma handle can be made 
out of any strong wood. The hide-workers informed me of the local names for the 
trees used to make the handles and mastic. Staff at the Chencha Agricultural Co-op 
and the University of Addis Ababa Herbarium identified these species and their 
elevation ranges. 

As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the Gamo recognize two environmental 
zones: the highlands (geza) and the lowlands (baso). Scientific identification of the 
trees used to make a zucano type handle confirms they only grow in the baso 
environmental zone. The wood of the acacia and other lowland trees is very strong, 
and the tree's resin is used for the mastic to hold the scrapers in the zucano type 
handles. Today, the use of a zucano handle predominates in the deres of Ochollo and 
Borada (Bekele-Tesema, Birene, and Tenganas 1993; Hedberg and Edwards 1995; 
Hedberg and Edwards 1989) (Table 4-1). 



131 



PAST 




PRESENT 



200km 

i 



Figure 4-6: Map illustrating the past and present distribution of handle types among 
the Gamo. 



132 



Table 4-1 : The different species of trees and their elevation and environmental zone 
used to produce tutuma and zucano handle types. 



Handle 


Scientific Name 


Elevation 


Environmental 
Zone 


Tutuma 


Galiniera saxifraga 


Not Published 






Maesa lanceolata 


Not Published 






Hagenia abvssinica 


2450-3250 


geza /highland 




Eucalvptus Sp. 


2300-3000 


geza/highland 


Zucano 


Olea africana 


Not published 






Cordia africana 


Not published 






Schrebrea alota oleaceae 


1500-2300 


basoAowland 




Combregur combretaeceae 


500-2300 


basoAowland 




Cupresse lustanica 


Not published 




Mastic 


Acacia brevispica 


900-2000 


basoAowland 




Acacia niolitica 


700-1700 


basoAowland 



The central Gamo (Dita, Doko, Dorze, Kogo, and Zada), who previously used 
both handle types, live in the geza environmental zone, where the acacia does not 
grow. The tutuma handle can be made out of any strong wood, but is most typically 
made from eucalyptus and requires no mastic. The outer leafy cover of the enset plant 
is dried and used to make the twine, which holds the tutuma scraper in place. Today, 
the central Gamo hide- workers claim that the incentive or demand for hides and the 
price they receive is not good enough to make the effort to obtain resources from the 
lowlands to use the zucano type handle. Today, cattle hides are being scraped in the 
central Gamo region with a tutuma handle. However, the tutuma also predominates in 
Ganta, Kamba, and Bonke deres, which have elevation ranges that span all the 
environmental zones. In this southern region, tutumas have always been used to 
scrape cattle hides as well as goat and sheep hides. Hence, it is more than 
environmental resource accessibility that is the driving force behind choice in handle 
style. 



133 
Furthermore, there is no connection between access to stone resources and the 
type of hafting. Previous researchers have proposed that direct access to resources 
leads to a curated tool form and indirect access leads to an informal tool form (Henry 
1989; Parry and Kelley 1987; Shott 1986). The closed-hafted zucano handles tend to 
be associated with a more formalized tool form, while in contrast the open hafted 
tutuma handle is more associated with an informal tool form (see Chapter 5 for 
details). Yet, as illustrated in Figure 4-7, there is not a correlation between access to 
resources and handle type. The zucano users of the northern Gamo region have direct 
access to chert materials, as do some of the central and southern tutuma users. In 
addition, all four villages I studied, Mogesa and Amure which use a zucano handle 
and Eeyahoo and Patela who use a tutuma handle all have direct access to chert within 
a two to three hour walk. Clearly, other factors are dictating handle form outside the 
realm of access to raw materials. 

It is not plausible to attribute the presence of two different handle types among 
the Gamo as the result of function for the following three reasons. First, today both 
handle types are used to scrape cattle hides. Secondly, in the past, the use of the two 
handle types for two different functions (i.e., scraping goat verse cattle hides) was 
only known in a small portion of the Gamo region. Third, the distribution of handle 
types does not correspond to their environmental regions for the needed resources. 
Economic factors led to the discontinued use of the zucano handle among the central 
Gamo. However, there is no basis for solely assigning resource availability as the 
limiting factor on the presence of the two handle types. In the past and today, handle 
types overlap environmental zones. The differences between handle types and 



134 




; „• zucano users 

O central 
tutuma users 

r \ southern 

V ./ tutuma users 

■ chert source 

— - paved road 

unpaved path 



Figure 4-7: Map illustrating the tutuma- and zucano-using areas and their relationship 
to chert sources. 






135 
scrapers by handle type in terms of Gamo intrasocial groupings will be explored in the 
next chapter. 

Hide Procurement 

The hide-workers receive hides to scrape mostly at Mesqual (the Ethiopian 
New Year in late September) and during the Orthodox holidays of Christmas 
(January) and Easter (March). During these holidays, the Gamo sacrifice cattle in 
honor of the ancestors to preserve the fertility and health of land and people. The 
hide-worker is not allowed to slaughter the animal because of his association with 
pollution and infertility. Instead a sanctioned baira mala slaughters the animal, and 
then the hide-worker butchers the animal and removes its hide. After removing the 
hide from the carcass, the hide-worker takes the hide to his home 

While the hide is still moist, the hide-worker uses the flat side of a metal knife 
in a rolling motion to remove the upper layer of fat on the inside of the hide. The 
hide-worker cuts seven to twelve holes along the edge of the hide. They stretch the 
hide out a few centimeters above the ground and wooden stakes are set through the cut 
holes to keep it in place. The hide dries in this manner for one to two days depending 
on the weather. The hide-worker rolls up the dried hide and stores it in the rafters of 
the house and in the branches of nearby trees. They usually scrape hides during the 
rainy season (March to May and July to early September), when the raw materials for 
scraper production are available. Since the current holidays do not correspond to the 
rainy seasons, the hides are kept and scraped later. 



136 
The Hide-Scraping Process 

The hide-workers scrape the cattle hides to produce bedding, chairs, saddles, 
and drums. There is no variation in how cattle hides are scraped based on their final 
use. However, in 1995 we learned that if a hide is used for a saddle it is boiled in hot 
water in a ceramic bowl and that the hair is removed. I never witnessed this process 
nor worked with any hide-workers who still made saddles. Hair is not removed for the 
production of any of the other items, including clothing. Often the hide is only dried 
and not scraped to make chairs and drums. 

The morning that the hide is to be scraped, it is taken to a stream or river and 
saturated in the water for one hour. During the hide scraping process, the hide-worker 
also periodically (four to five times per hour) sprays a mouthful of water onto the area 
of hide he is working to keep it moist. If the hide is too dry, it is very difficult to 
remove the fat from the innerside. After the hide is saturated in water, it is stretched 
out on a vertical wooden frame (jima). The upper edges of the frame's two poles 
either rest on the household wall if located inside the household or on a mud bank wall 
or against large enset plants. If the frame is located inside the household, it is always 
placed immediately to one side of the entrance, where there is sufficient light to see 
the hide. The hide-worker secures the hide on the frame by winding enset twine 
through the holes along the edge of the hide edge around the framing poles. They 
refer to the process of hanging the hide on the frame as tolo. The twine is tied at the 
top and the bottom to achieve an appropriate tension in the hide. The hide- worker taps 
on the hide to determine the appropriate tension of the hide for scraping. 



137 
The frame consists of three bamboo poles, two of which are planted in the 
ground at an angle of 75 to 85 degrees (relative to the ground) among the northern and 
central Gamo and 65 to 75 degrees for the southern Gamo. The angle of the frame at 
which the hides are hung also reflects handle type. For instance, in the tutuma-using 
villages of Eeyahoo and Patela, the frame has an angle of 70 and 85 degrees, 
respectively. In the zucano-us'mg villages of Amure and Mogesa, the frame has an 
angle of 90 to 80 degrees, respectively. The angle at which the hide is hung is specific 
to lineage and village membership and hence reflects social differences. 

Holding the handle with both hands and with one scraper against the hide, the 
hide-worker begins to remove the fatty innerlayer of hide by either a scraping or 
chopping motion. For scraping, the hide-worker shaves off long stripes of the fat from 
the innerside of the hide. For chopping, the hide-worker places his hand underneath a 
rough spot on the hide or along the hardened edges of the hides and pounds the hide in 
his hand with the scraper. 

The hide is initially hung with the tail hanging along the bottom axis. This 
allows the hide-worker easier positioning to first scrape in the uppercenter of the hide, 
which is the most difficult and thickest area of the hide. After the hide- worker scrapes 
the exposed surface of the hide, he takes the hide down and rehangs it with the tail 
located at the top of the frame. Then he scrapes the area previously not reduced. The 
dogs eat the removed hide strips (tukaa) as they fall to the ground. 

The mean number of scrapers or edges used (as some hide-workers use 
multiple edges of the same tool) for completely scraping a hide is 4.5 (n = 29, s.d. = 
3.35, minimum = 1, and maximum = 17). The hide-worker resharpens the end of the 



138 
scraper with an iron billet when the edge becomes dull. The handle is held in one 
hand with the ventral surface of the scraper facing upward. The edge is hit with a 
small iron billet removing small flakes. The resharpening flakes fall directly onto the 
ground and later the hide-worker either 1 ) sweeps them to the edges of the household, 
2) sweeps them outside the threshold, or 3) sweeps them onto a piece of hide and 
thrown in a pile with discarded scrapers. In one village, I studied the hide-workers 
collect scrapers and retouch waste and throw them into the garden next to their house. 
The other three villages studied had specific locations for discarding scrapers, usually 
located 10 to 50 meters from the household, within thorn bushes or in a small ravine. 
Individuals who live near one another often share discard locations. I also noted the 
presence of discarded scrapers near thresholds, hearths, and along pathways located 
near the hide-workers' households. I never found scrapers located on paths near the 
mala or mana households. 

When the hide is near completion, the wife or mother of the hide-worker subtly 
walks past the hide feeling it with her hand, and if she is silent then she has given her 
approval for its completeness. The mean scraping time for a single hide is 4 hours and 
24 minutes (n=29, s.d. = 2.43, minimum = 1.4, maximum = 1 1.05). This timing does 
not include breaks, but does include activities associated with hide-working including 
turning the hide around, adjusting the tension, and applying water. After he scrapes 
the hide completely, the hide-worker blows liquid butter on it and folds the hide over 
with his feet for over an hour every day for a week. Although butter is a luxury item, 
the hide-workers still use it to soften the hide. No tannin is added to the hide. 
However, in Zada the Gamo use cattle urine to wash their clothing. Oral history 



139 
indicates that in the past it is probable that all Gamo people washed their clothing in 
this manner. In North American cultures, urine was used to tan the hides (Nelson 
1899:1 17). The Gamo may not tan their hides because they washed/or wash their 
clothing with urine, which acts as a preservative. 

Scraper Morphology 

There are several potential functional sources of variation for Gamo stone 
scrapers because of the different activities that occur during the hide-scraping process. 
Several sources of functional variation, however, have already been eliminated 
including: the scraping of hides of different species of animals, since today the Gamo 
only scrape cattle hides; the scraping of hides with two different handle types, for if 
there is variation here it is related to social differences rather than resource availability 
or function; and the angle and tension of the hide, which seems to reflect handle type 
and hence social differences rather than function. However, there are still five other 
potential sources of scraper variation that I discuss below, including the different 
stages of scraper use, differences in stone materials, scraping verses chopping 
activities, hafting verses nonhafting, and hide type (lowland versus highland). 

Unused (Oratay) and Used-up (Chima) 

The morphological differences of scrapers as observed in their different stages 
of use are based on 8 1 1 unused and 872 used-up scrapers collected from the four 
villages I studied in-depth (Mogesa, Eeyahoo, Amure, and Patela). The Gamo hide- 
workers do not discard scrapers before they are completely used-up. A good scraping 



140 
edge is a valuable resource to the hide-workers, one that they do not relinquish easily. 
It is doubtful to me that they ever discard a partially used scraper, unless the scraper 
breaks. The handles are stored separately (usually hung from an interior wall or in an 
enset tree) from unused materials (stored within bowls or bags kept near the scraping 
frame or under the bed) and discarded materials (near the hearth, outside the threshold, 
and in secondary lithic trash deposits). 

Archaeologists have previously used planform and cross-section to determine 
the use and/or stage of use of scrapers (Dibble 1984, 1987; Kuhn 1992). I compared 
the planform, percentage of cortex, dorsal scar pattern, and cross-section between 
unused and used-up scrapers (see Appendix Figures D-l, D-2, D-3, and D-4). A 
graphic comparison of these attributes, in terms of percentages for unused and used-up 
scrapers, indicated that most of these variables are not affected by the use of the 
scraper. Since Gamo scraper technology is not a blade technology, the length of the 
scrapers is not twice as long as the breadth, and therefore even unused scrapers have a 
short planform. There is very little variation in the overall planform of unused and 
used-up scrapers. The hide-workers make the scrapers on tertiary flakes and therefore 
little cortex is ever present. However, used-up scrapers show slightly less cortex than 
unused scrapers, as would be expected with the removal of material through the 
resharpening process. A radial dorsal pattern dominates both unused and used-up 
scrapers. As the result of the reduction of the working edge and hence a reduction in 
the length of the scraper through use, used-up scrapers tend to have a plano-convex or 
triangular cross-section. In contrast, there is a fairly even distribution of lenticular, 
plano-convex, and parallelogram cross-sections for unused scrapers. I did not conduct 



141 
statistical tests between these variables because the graphic comparisons indicate little 
differentiation between the two forms. 

A comparison of the unused and used-up scraper characteristics indicate a 
significant difference between all compared variables (i.e., medial breadth, maximum 
length, proximal thickness, distal thickness, breadth/length ratio, thickness/length 
ratio, weight, retouch scar length, and distal edge angle) except for medial breadth, 
proximal thickness, and weight (see Appendix Table C-l for data). It is expected that 
the breadth and proximal thickness of the tool would be similar in unused and used-up 
specimens since the tool is not reduced in its breadth or proximal thickness during use, 
only its length. Furthermore, it is of interest that weight does not significantly change 
despite the reduction in length of the used edge. 

Used-up scrapers are statistically significantly different in their overall 
morphology from unused scrapers, as indicated in the comparison of distal 
thickness/length and breadth/length ratios. Each time a scraper is resharpened it is hit 
with the iron billet an average of 20. 1 times (n = 132, s.d. = 16.6, minimum = 3, 
maximum = 172) removing between 0.27 to 12.76 grams of resharpening flakes, 
which are all less than 1 mm in size. The amount of reduction in the scrapers from 
their unused to used-up stage was configured in two ways. First, based on direct 
observation of 127 scrapers and recurrent measurement of the scrapers throughout 
their use, I determine that the average scraper is reduced 0.64 cm (n=127, s.d. = 0.56, 
minimum = 0, maximum = 2.6) during their complete use. Secondly, by subtracting 
the mean length of used-up scrapers (2.76 cm, n=872) from unused scrapers (3.42 cm, 
n= 81 1), I configured a very similar value at 0.66 cm. 



142 
The most important attribute of the scraper for the hide-workers is the working 
edge. There is a statistically significant difference between the distal thickness of the 
unused scrapers and the used-up scrapers. When they sorted the scrapers, they did so 
by placing the ventral side face up and examining the distal ventral working edge. 
They all said that the scrapers with the thin distal tip (their criteria not mine) were 
unused or still useable. They were fairly accurate in their assessment of which 
scrapers were unused and which were used-up. However, the villages which used the 
zucano type handle were more accurate (86 percent correct for unused and 92 percent 
correct for used-up) than the tutuma villages (56 percent correct for unused and 50 
percent correct for used-up). This may be a result of the nature of the two scraper 
types and the fact that the tutuma-users make use of more than one edge of the tool. In 
fact, in the tutuma-us'mg village of Patela, I was told that all of the scrapers in the 
assortment were still useable. 

Archaeologists commonly use edge angle to distinguish unused from used-up 
archaeological scrapers. This study also finds a statistically significant difference 
between the mean unused and used-up edge angles. The mean edge angle of an 
unused scraper is 50.45 (n=81 1, s.d. = 10.57, minimum 18, maximum 94) and the 
mean edge angle of used-up scrapers is 67.21 (n=872, s.d. 12.64, minimum 26, 
maximum 1 14). Unfortunately, it was impossible to measure the edge angle of the 
scrapers when they were hafted and being used, as the head of the handle would 
prevent the arm of the goniometer, even when the arm was shortened as far as 
possible, from resting on the scraper edge. The only way to measure it accurately 
would be to take it out of the haft and this was not practical for a living situation. 






143 
A wear analysis of the scraper edge indicated increased rounding of the edge 
through use. I define rounding as a decrease in the number of intact channels and 
ridges. I examined 203 unused and 136 used-up scrapers. The mean number of intact 
ridges on unused scrapers was 10.10 (s.d. = 4.15, variance = 17.28, minimum = 1, and 
maximum = 24). In contrast, the mean number of intact ridges on used-up scrapers 
was 2.97 (s.d. = 2.34, variance = 5.49, minimum = 0, and maximum =11). Although 
there is a statistically significant difference between the number of intact ridges on the 
used edge of unused and used-up scrapers (t-test results indicate 4.65, with t-critical at 
1 .96 in the 0.05 confidence level), postdepositional factors may significantly interfere 
with any microwear results. The hide-workers made minimal efforts to keep discarded 
lithic materials out of the paths of feet. However, I often saw scrapers on paths near 
degala households, where people, cattle, horses, sheep, and goats could easily trample 
them. Furthermore, scrapers were not gently dropped or placed in the discard piles but 
usually thrown. The falling of scrapers and other stone materials onto each other and 
trampling by humans and domesticated stock could easily cause edge damage 
obscuring rounding and even break the scrapers. 

Obsidian (Salloa) and Chert (Goshay) 

The Gamo use two types of raw material, chert and obsidian, to scrape hides. 
Today, the Gamo hide-workers rarely use obsidian because it is expensive to obtain 
through trade with the Wolayta peoples and because it is rare to find a good useable 
piece on a local archaeological site. Obsidian is used predominately by hide-workers 
living in Borada, Ochollo, Kogo, Zada, Dita, and Doko, but is not known among the 



144 
southern most Gamo (Ganta, Bonke, and Kamba). Hence, both zucano - and tutuma- 
using hide-workers employ the use of chert and obsidian. Eight (five tutuma-users 
and three zwcano-users) of the twenty-nine hide-workers I observed used an obsidian 
scraper, and none of the hide-workers used obsidian to the exclusion of chert to scrape 
the hide. In all, I collected eleven used-up obsidian scrapers, which I witnessed being 
used. Below, I compare the number of times chert and obsidian working edge are 
used before they are resharpened. Compared to chert scrapers, obsidian scrapers held 
their edge slightly longer when being used for scraping, but not for chopping (Table 4- 
2). 

Table 4-2: The number of scrapes for chert and obsidian edges before resharpening. 



Raw Material 


Mean Number Scrapes 


Mean Number of Chops 


Chert (n=142) 


201.5 


82.0 


Obsidian (n=ll) 


247.0 


70.9 



In addition, I compared the presence of intact ridges on the used-up obsidian 
scrapers to the used-up chert scrapers. The mean number of ridges on the used-up 
obsidian scrapers was 5.25 (n=l 1) and 2.85 (n=142) on the chert scrapers. The latter 
also seems to confirm that obsidian holds its edge better than chert. Furthermore, the 
mean reduction length of obsidian was 0.9 cm (n=l 1) in comparison to 0.6 cm for 
chert (n=142) from their unused to used-up stages. 

A comparison of the morphology of Gamo obsidian and chert scrapers 
indicates that there are few significant morphological differences between the two 
material types. The following data are based on my total collection of scrapers from 



145 
four villages studied in-depth and not simply on those I observed being used. Unused 
obsidian scrapers were slightly longer and with a larger breadth/length ratio, than 
unused chert scrapers (see Appendix Table C-2 for data). Unused obsidian scrapers 
were also statistically significantly thinner on the proximal end than chert scrapers. 
However, after the scrapers have been completely used-up there are no statistically 
significant differences between them (see Appendix Table C-3 for data). The larger 
reduction of obsidian scrapers compared to chert scrapers during use allows them to be 
morphologically similar in length in their used-up stage. 

Hence, although the Gamo more frequently resharpen chert scrapers, obsidian 
scrapers are reduced more in length, and except for unused length there are few 
morphological differences between the scrapers made of the two raw material types. 
The Gamo make a specific scraper type regardless of the raw material from which it is 
made. 

Scraping (Katcha) and Chopping (Coata) 

The Gamo hide-workers do not intentionally make two different scrapers to 
scrape and chop at the hides. However long, thin, and sharp scrapers, i.e., unused and 
partially used scrapers are used to scrape. Once the edge of the tool becomes thicker 
and duller, it is used for chopping. When a scraper begins to dull, the hide-worker 
starts to use it for chopping. In this study of thirty scrapers, which began unused and 
were used for both scraping and chopping, the hide-workers used the edge for scraping 
an average of 1542.39 scrapes (s.d. = 1078.83, minimum = 382, and maximum = 
5072) before using it for chopping. I never witnessed a completely unused scraper 



146 
edge being used for chopping. The hide-workers stated that they used a duller edge 
because a very sharp edge could easily hurt the palm of their hand, which they place 
directly under the hide while chopping. 

The average number of times a scraper is used for scraping and chopping 
before it is resharpened is 204.8 and 161, respectively (n=153 scrapers). This suggests 
that when the edge is used for chopping it needs to be resharpened more frequently. I 
questioned the hide-workers as to why they frequently sharpened the edge of a 
scraper, when they used it for chopping. They replied that the edge becomes rough 
and hurts their hand, so they work the edge to smooth it out. I witnessed and collected 
some used-up scrapers (numbering 30) that were used only for scraping, and other 
used-up scrapers that were used for both scraping and chopping (numbering 64). 

A comparison of the measurable attributes of the scrapers differentiated by 
their use in different activities indicates changes in distal thickness, distal/length ratio 
and retouch length (see Appendix Table C-4 for data). Scrapers used only for scraping 
had a significantly thinner distal working edge, and had less depth to their retouch 
scars than scrapers used for scraping and chopping. This corresponds to the 
informants' comments that they use scrapers for chopping when they look duller and 
have a thicker distal edge. Longer retouch scars may be the result of chopping edges 
needing more working of the edge, as indicated above. However, scrapers used for 
chopping may also have longer retouch scars because they tend to be used longer 
before chopping commences, than tools used only for scraping. Thus, there are 
significant differences in the distal thickness and retouch scar length for scraper 
morphology based on the use of a scraper for either scraping or a combination of 



147 
scraping and chopping. In addition, although there is a significant difference in the 
breadth/length ratio between scrapers used for the two functions, it is barely 
significant. 

Hafting 

Archaeologists have suggested that hafted tools bear distinct characteristics, 
which distinguish them from unhafted tools (Keeley 1982, Odell 1994). The Gamo 
only use hafted tools in their hide-scraping work, and so it is only possible to examine 
the characteristics from this viewpoint. However, the Gamo do have two types of 
handles, one closed-socket with mastic and one open-socket without mastic. The 
scrapers hafted in mastic often had mastic residues covering the socketed portion of 
the scraper. There were also perpendicular striations embedded in the mastic on the 
ventral side. Many signs of hafting are determined through microwear studies, but I 
only had access to a 20x hand lens and so did not witness any marks such as striations 
(not embedded in mastic) or polish. 

Gamo scrapers exhibit signs of hafting such as lateral notching, ventral 
thinning, secondary spurs, and dorsal ridge reduction (Table 4-3). These 
characteristics were present only in a small proportion of the assemblage. Lateral 
notches are created to fit the tool better into the haft or caused by friction of the tool 
against the haft. Lateral notching was present on 0.05 percent of the used-up scrapers. 
The hide-workers also use ventral thinning (zucano and tutuma handles) and dorsal 
ridge reduction {zucano only) to reduce the thickness of a scraper to better fit it in the 
haft. Ventral thinning was present on 12.99 percent of the scrapers and dorsal ridge 



148 
reduction was less frequent on only 1 .8 percent of the scrapers. The presence of 
secondary spurs on the proximal end of scrapers as the result of reharpening after 
transverse hafting snaps is reported in archaeological specimens (Rule and Evans 
1985). Secondary spurs were not present on the Gamo scrapers, as the hide-workers 
refused to use scrapers that had broken. When the distal tip became unusable on 
tutuma scrapers and a lateral side was used, there was still no evidence of secondary 
spurs. Although lateral notching, ventral thinning and dorsal ridge reduction do occur 
as the result of hafting, it is not present on all hafted tools. Therefore, the absence of 
these characteristics can not be taken to indicate the lack of hafting. 

Table 4-3: Hafting characteristics for scrapers. 



Characteristics 


Number 

Frequency 

n=2055 


Percentage 


Lateral Notching 


6 


0.05% 


Ventral Thinning 


267 


12.99% 


Secondary Spurs 





0% 


Dorsal Ridge Reduction 


37 


1.8% 



Lowland (Baso) and Highland {Geza) Hides 



All the Gamo hide-workers scrape both highland and lowland cattle hides. I 
observed twelve lowland hide-scrapings and seventeen highland hide-scraping events. 
The lowland hides tend to be thicker, ranging from 3 to 6 mm with a mean of 3.95 
mm, while the highland hides range from 2 to 3 mm with a mean of 2.76 mm in 
thickness. A t-test indicates that there is a significant difference in the thickness 
between these two types of hides (see Appendix Table C-5). From head to tail, the 



149 
hides average 170.62 cm in length and 134.93 cm in width. Lowland hides tend to be 
slightly smaller, averaging 168.4 cm (range 160 to 190) in length and 131.8 cm (range 
1 16 to 145 cm) in width. Highland hides average 174.17 cm (range 147 to 208 cm) in 
length and 140.5 cm (range 1 10 to 220 cm) in width. However, because of the high 
variability in sizes, probably based on individuality, age, and the sex of the cattle, 
there is not a statistically significant difference in the size between lowland and 
highland cattle in my sample (see Appendix Table C-5). 

All the hide-workers claimed that it takes longer to scrape a lowland hide 
because they are thicker and rougher. My observations indicated that the time to 
scrape highland hides averaged 4 hours and 6 minutes (range 1.70 to 7.41 hours) and 
lowland hides 4 hours and 34 minutes (range 1 .40 to 1 1 .05 hours). There is 
considerable overlap in the time ranges, which renders the difference in scraping time 
between the two types of hides insignificant (Table 4-4 and Table 4-5). 

However, what does seem to be affecting the time to scrape a hide is the type 
of hide in conjunction to how much they reduce it through scraping. The only real 
exception is Arka (Table 4-4), who took 5 hours to reduce his highland hide only 1- 
mm. However, Arka claimed to have poor chert to work with and frequently had to 
change his scraper, which took up extra time. 

As stated earlier, a single hide-scraping event takes 4-1/2 hours with a mean of 
4.5 scrapers per scraped hide. Hence, there is an average use of one scraper edge per 
hour. In a comparison of 29 hide-workers, I observed an average use of 5.0 scraper 
edges for lowland hides and 4. 1 scraper edges for highland hides. Since we have 
already determined that the amount of material reduced is important in discerning the 



150 
time spent on the hide, it might also relate to the number of scrapes and scraper edges 
used per hide. The number of chops is probably not as significant in relationship to 
other variables because chopping is primarily conducted on the edges of the hide that 
shrivel during drying. Sometimes, the hide-workers cut off parts or the whole edge 
rather than chopping at it. The mean number of scrapes per hide is 1541 and the mean 
number of chops is 793 per hide. 

Tables 4-6 and 4-7 indicate that the number of scrapes is related to the type of 
hide and the amount that the hide is reduced, but it is also related to the size of the 
hide. The more scrapes or chops incurred, the more the hide is reduced and/or the 
larger the hide. A comparison of the highland hides (Table 4-7) indicates that Mola, 
Yonja, Buta, and Amaylo have a slightly lower number of scrapes for the removal of 
1.5-2 mm off a highland hide than Yeka, who also removed 2 mm off a highland hide. 
However, Yeka had a very large hide, and Mola, Yonja, Buta, and Amaylo even have 
smaller hides than most of those who only removed 1 mm on highland hides. Hence 
as would be expected, the number of scrapes increases with the amount of material 
removed and the size of the hide. 

In addition, the more material that the hide-workers removed generally the 
higher the number of scrapers used (Table 4-8 and Table 4-9). The exceptions for 
lowland hides are Darsa and Garbo. Darsa and Garbo removed 2 mm but scraped the 
smallest hides and so did not use as many scrapers as others who also scraped off 2 
mm. Awesto, Arba, and Amaylo have found their own chert source, which was not 
previously exploited through the generations and is of poorer quality than that used by 
other villages. This may explain why they used such a large number of scraping edges 



151 



Table 4-4: Lowland hides- time and thickness. 



Person 


Time 
(hour) 


Thickness Reduced 
mm 


Tesfy 


11.05 


2 


Awesto 


8.43 


2 


Goa 


8.08 


2 


Darsa 


3.35 


2 


Mokano 


3.17 


2 


Garbo 


2.30 


2 


Bedala 


2.23 




Galche 


2.20 




Hanicha 


2.15 




Chamo 


2.08 




Osha 


1.50 




Hagay 


1.40 


0.5 



Table 4-5: Highland hides -time and thickness. 



Person 


Time 
(hour) 


Thickness 

Reduced 

mm 


Buta 


7.42 


2.0 


Yonja 


6.58 


2.0 


Yeka 


6.25 


2.0 


Arka 


5.00 


1.0 


Mola 


4.33 


1.5 


Amaylo 


4.17 


1.5 


Tina 


4.00 


1.0 


Tsoma 


3.45 


1.0 


Arba 


3.42 


1.0 


Unkay 


3.20 


1.0 


Basa 


2.41 


1.0 


Abata 


2.40 


1.0 


Uma 


2.40 


1.0 


Tinko 


2.30 


1.0 


Mardos 


2.00 


1.0 


Gaga 


2.00 


1.0 


Gamana 


1.40 


1.0 



152 



Table 4-6: Lowland hides and scraper use. 



Person 


Number Scrapes 


Number Chops 


Thickness 

Difference 

mm 


Mean 

Breadth/Length 

cm 

Ratio of Hide 


Awesto 


12793 


3021 


2 


0.77 


Goa 


11369 


7023 


2 


0.77 


Tesfy 


10740 


20086 


2 


0.86 


Darsa 


9101 


1640 


2 


0.67 


Garbo 


7263 


2940 


2 


0.72 


Galche 


7807 


2064 




0.80 


Hanicha 


6807 


1922 




0.83 


Osha 


5810 


1125 




0.88 


Mokano 


5260 


4254 




0.79 


Chamo 


4731 


1714 




0.76 


Bedala 


4706 


1283 




0.76 


Hagay 


2946 


855 


0.5 


0.81 



Table 4-7: Highland hides and scraper use. 



Person 


Number 
Scrapes 


Number Chops 


Thickness 

Difference 

mm 


Mean 

Breadth/Length 

cm 

Ratio of Hide 


Yeka 


14122 


9137 


2 


1.37 


Arka 


12589 


3628 




0.82 


Tina 


11310 


2810 




1.00 


Tinko 


10940 


589 




0.73 


Basa 


10201 


3913 




0.93 


Unkay 


8583 


3470 




0.67 


Mola 


9732 


5443 


1.5 


0.75 


Yonja 


8112 


13641 


2 


0.71 


Buta 


7811 


9277 


2 


0.75 


Amaylo 


7734 


1121 


1.5 


0.78 


Gaga 


7356 


1607 




0.74 


Abata 


7154 


4979 




0.68 


Tsoma 


7122 


4334 




0.80 


Mardos 


6967 


2037 




0.71 


Arba 


6537 


3087 




0.86 


Gamana 


5226 


2567 




0.69 


Uma 


4961 


1698 




0.76 



153 



Table 4-8: Lowland hides and number of scraper edges. 



Person 


Number of 
Edges used 


Thickness 

Difference 

mm 


Mean 

Breadth/Length cm 

Ratio of Hide 


Awesto 


17 


2 


0.77 


Tesfy 


8.0 


2 


0.86 


Goa 


5.5 


2 


0.77 


Mokano 


4.5 


1 


0.79 


Osha 


4.0 


1 


0.88 


Hanicha 


3.5 


1 


0.83 


Galche 


3.5 


1 


0.80 


Chamo 


3.5 


1 


0.76 


Bedala 


3.5 


1 


0.76 


Hagay 


3.5 


0.5 


0.81 


Darsa 


3.0 


2 


0.67 


Garbo 


1.0 


2 


0.72 



Table 4-9: Highland hides and number of scraper edges. 



Person 


Number of 
Edges used 


Thickness 

Difference 

mm 


Mean 

Breadth/Length 

cm 

Ratio of Hide 


Arka 


12.0 


1.0 


0.82 


Amaylo 


9.0 


1.5 


0.78 


Arba 


6.0 


1.0 


0.86 


Yeka 


5.5 


2.0 


1.37 


Buta 


4.5 


2.0 


0.75 


Yonja 


4.0 


2.0 


0.71 


Mola 


4.0 


1.5 


0.75 


Mardos 


3.5 


1.0 


0.71 


Gamana 


3.5 


1.0 


0.69 


Tsoma 


3.0 


1.0 


0.80 


Uma 


3.0 


1.0 


0.76 


Tinko 


3.0 


1.0 


0.73 


Unkay 


3.0 


1.0 


0.67 


Tina 


2.5 


1.0 


1.00 


Basa 


2.0 


1.0 


0.93 


Gaga 


1.0 


1.0 


0.74 


Abata 


1.0 


1.0 


0.68 



154 
on their hides compared to the others, who scraped highland and lowland hides. As 
mentioned before, Arka also informed me that his chert was of low quality and that 
was why he used so many scrapers. 

As stated above, the Gamo hide- workers informed me that they take longer and 
use more scrapers to scrape lowland cattle hides. The latter were both confirmed by 
my observations. Furthermore, they commented that the age and sex of the cattle had 
no effect on their hide processing methods. They also clearly stated that they did not 
make different types of scrapers to scrape highland and lowland cattle. Since the hide- 
workers do not intentionally make two different scrapers types to scrape these 
different types of hides, it is not possible to compare unused scrapers differentiated by 
hide type. 

However, I do have a sample of 54 highland used-up scrapers and 57 lowland 
used-up scrapers for which I have good context. The t-tests indicate that there is only 
a significant difference between scrapers used on highland hides versus lowland hides 
in terms of medial breadth, distal thickness and retouch scar length (see Appendix 
Table C-6). Lowland hides require a sturdy edge to remove the rough material. The 
scrapers used on lowland hides have a higher retouch scar length and a higher distal 
thickness, but a smaller medial breadth, which would make the tool sturdy. The latter 
in connection with the fact that more scrapers are used to scrape lowland hides than 
highland hides suggests that scrapers used on lowland hides wear faster than those 
used on highland hides. 



155 
Discussion 

A regional study of the Gamo environment and hide-working practices 
illustrates that some culture specific activities affect stone tool morphology. This 
study looked at several aspects of scraper function not previously recorded among the 
hide-workers of southern Ethiopia, notably the use of chert and obsidian, chopping 
verses scraping activities, and the scraping of both highland and lowland cattle hides. 
The Gamo chose to procure locally made cherts and virtually ignore quartzite sources. 
They also establish long-distance resources to acquire obsidian for scraper production. 
Differences in raw material and procurement strategies have been cited as a source for 
variability in the archaeological record, even within a single culture (Luedtke 1976; 
McAnnay 1988; Odell 1989; Rule 1983; Tankersley 1990). However, I found that 
procurement strategies are not related to scraper form or to hafting type among the 
Gamo. Furthermore, there is not a significant difference between the used-up scraper 
morphologies of Gamo chert and obsidian scrapers. 

The distal thickness and length of the retouch scars were affected by both 
differences in the activities such as scraping versus chopping and differences in the 
type of hide being scraped. Scrapers used for chopping and scraping had a thicker 
distal thickness and more retouch scarring than those used only for scraping. This 
concurs with emic information that stated a thicker edge was needed for chopping a 
hide, and the observance that scrapers used for chopping and scrapping were more 
frequently sharpened than those used just for scraping. Among the Sidama, Wolayta, 
and Gurage, we discovered that the hide-workers intentionally made longer scrapers 
for scraping and shorter-thicker scrapers for chopping (Brandt and Weedman 2000). 



156 
The Gamo, however, do not intentionally make two different scraper types for 

chopping and scraping. 

In general, the Gamo use fewer scrapers to scrape a highland hide than a 
lowland hide. Generally, lowland hides are thicker, reduced an average of 2 mm, 
while highland hides are thinner, and reduced only 1 mm. In support of the fact that 
more scrapers are needed to scrape lowland hides, I discovered that the distal 
thickness and retouch scar length of scrapers used on lowland hides was higher on 
both accounts. 

My functional study of Gamo scrapers did not produce results similar to 
studies of other ethnic groups including the Sidama, Konso, Gurage, Oromo, and 
Wolayta (Brandt and Weedman 2000; Clark and Kurashina 1981; Gallagher 1977a, 
1977b:214-299; Haaland 1987:66-70)(Table 4-10). Only the Konso use chert like the 
Gamo, and all the other ethnic groups use obsidian exclusively. The Gamo did not use 
obsidian to the exclusion of chert while I observed them scraping a hide. Therefore, I 
cannot compare the number of chert verses obsidian edges used to scrape one hide 
among the Gamo. I recorded an average of 4-hours and 25 minutes for a hide- 
scraping event using 4.5 scraper edges reduced an average of 0.60 cm each. In 
contrast, Gallagher (1977b:267-268, 278) found among the Gurage that during a 6- 
hour scraping process 2 to 4 scrapers were used and reduced 2.45 cm each. Brandt 
and Weedman's (2000) study of the Gurage found similar results with an average 
reduction of 2.59 cm per scraper. Clark and Kurashina (1981) stated that during an 8- 
10 hour hide scraping event of the Oromo two scrapers were exhausted and reduced 
2.54 cm each in length. Haaland (1987:70) also reported a six-hour scraping period 



157 
but with the use of four scrapers for cattle and two for smaller hides. However she 
does not indicate how much the scrapers were reduced by nor give any measurements 
of her unused and used-up scraper lengths. Brandt and Weedman's (2000) study of 
the Wolayta indicated an average reduction of scrapers by 1 .2 cm. 



Table 4-10: Comparison of cross-cultural studies of hide- working variables for one 
hide-scraping event. 



Ethnic 
Group 
Researcher 


Time 
(hours) 


Number of Used 
Scrapers/Edges 


Reduction 
Length of Each 
Scraper 


Resharpening 
Frequency 
per number of 
scrapes 


Gamo 

Present 

study 


4.25 


4.5 


0.60 cm 


247 


Sidama 
Brandt and 
Weedman 




1 


3.72 cm 


46 


Konso 
Brandt and 
Weedman 




2 to 6 


1.63 cm 


59.6 


Gurage 
Brandt and 
Weedman 




2 to 7 


2.59 cm 


95 


Gurage & 

Oromo 

Gallagher 

(1977) 


6 


2 to 4 


2.45 cm 


100 


Oromo 
Clark & 
Kurashina 
(1981) 


8 to 10 


2 


2.54 cm 


15 to 20 


Wolayta 
Brandt and 
Weedman 




2 to 10 


1.2 cm 


112 


Wolayta 
Haaland 

(1987) 


6 


4 


Not reported 


50 to 60 



158 
Furthermore, the Gamo use their obsidian scrapers an average of 247 scrapes 
before resharpening. In comparison, the Gurage resharpen after an average of every 
90 to 100 strokes (Brandt and Weedman 2000; Gallagher 1977a), the Wolayta after 
every 50 to 1 12 scrapes (Brandt and Weedman 2000; Haaland 1987:69), the Konso 
after every 60 scrapes (Brandt and Weedman 2000), the Sidama after every 46 scrapes 
(Brandt and Weedman 2000), and the Oromo after only 15-20 scrapes (Clark and 
Kurashina 1981). 

In experimental studies, archaeologists determined that resharpening is 
necessary after even a higher number of strokes than most ethnographic research. For 
instance, with quartz scrapers was resharpened after 500-600 strokes (Broadbent and 
Knutsson 1975) and flint every 500-600 strokes (Brink 1978:97). The Gamo tend to 
resharpen scrapers less often and reduce them less in length than other southern 
Ethiopian ethnic groups. It is apparent that each ethnic group is different in terms of 
time spent, amount of resharpening, and the amount of scraper reduction. 

I also noted a significant difference found between unused and used-up 
scrapers in terms of length, distal thickness, retouch scar length, and edge angle. 
However, I found that breadth, proximal thickness, and weight remained similar. 
Dibble (1984, 1987) and Kuhn (1992) are strong advocates for reduction stages as the 
source for variation in scraper morphology found in the Middle Paleolithic. Dibble's 
(1987) experimental work demonstrated reduction in length and increase in evidence 
of retouch. Although Gallagher (1977b:278-279) noted differences in length, breadth, 
and thickness (I am assuming proximal thickness since this is a more common 
measurement), his numbers of unused (n=18) and used-up (n=12) are too small for 



159 
statistical comparison. He did not examine retouch scar length, distal thickness, 
weight, or edge angle. Brandt and Weedman (2000) noted that the greatest difference 
between unused and used-up scrapers was in their length, which ranged from 1 .2 to 
3.72 cm shorter after use, depending on the ethnic group. Clark and Kurashina (1981) 
found a statistical difference in the length and thickness between unused and used-up 
scrapers, but also found that breadth was significantly affected. 

The mean edge angle of Gamo unused scrapers is 50-degrees and when used- 
up a mean of 67-degrees. My results differ from Clark and Kurashina's (1981), who 
found a 44-degree mean distal edge angle for unused scrapers and a 56.6-degree mean 
distal edge angle for used-up scrapers. My unused edge angles and Clark and 
Kurashina's (1981) unused and used-up edge angles are within Wilmsen's (1968) 
experimental study of edge angles for hide-working with flint scrapers (46-55 
degrees). However, the Gamo use their scrapers to a higher edge-angle than the 
Oromo. More in line with my own study of the edge angle of used-up scrapers is 
Broadbent and Knutsson (1975) experimental study of quartz scrapers, finding that 55 
to 65 was the best edge angle for scraping hides. 

I recorded the presence of increased rounding of the distal edge through use of 
the scraper's edge. In contrast to my own findings of rounding of used-up scraper 
edges, Clark and Kurashina (1981) noted irregularities along the used edge. Vaughan 
(1985:26-27) and Hurcombe (1992:24-26) stated that the harder the material the more 
quickly rounding occurred. The difference between my results and Clark and 
Kurashina's (1981) results was that they were looking primarily at obsidian and I at 
chert. Even my comparison between chert and obsidian scrapers indicated that chert 



160 
scrapers tend to dull more quickly. Brink (1978:102) who experimented with flint 
scrapers also noted rounding as the most important kind of use-wear associated with 
hide scraping. 

The discovery of traces of bitumen on Middle Paleolithic stone tools is the 
earliest evidence for the hafting of scrapers (Boeda et al. 1996). I noted on the Gamo 
tools, as did Hardy (1996) in his study of Brandt's 1995 collection (Sidama, Gurage, 
Gamo, Konso, and Wolayta ethnic groups), the presence of mastic remaining on the 
scrapers after they were discarded. Hardy (1996) and I also noted the presence of 
striations running perpendicular to the haft along the distal ventral side within the 
mastic present on scrapers. Archaeological material and experimental studies have 
suggested several other stone characteristics that may indicate hafting including lateral 
notching and/or crushing, ventral thinning (Clark 1958a; Deacon and Deacon 1980; 
Gallagher 1977b:410; Hayden 1979:26-27; Keeley 1982; McNiven 1994; Nissen and 
Dittemore 1974; Rule and Evans 1985; Shott 1995), polish and crushing of dorsal 
ridges, as well as organized striature (Beyries 1988; Shott 1995). Clark and Kurashina 
(1981) also observed the presence of patina, polishing, and striations on their used-up 
and buried scrapers. In experimental studies of hide- working, Brink (1978: 102-103), 
Hayden (1993), Keeley (1980:50), Kimball (1995), and McDevitt (1987) recorded the 
presence of a luster or polish especially on drier hides. Although I noted the presence 
of ventral thinning, purposeful dorsal ridge reduction, and notching, the occurrence of 
these features was low, indicating that tools may be hafted without these 
characteristics. Furthermore, I was not working with polarized light and a microscope, 
so I did not note the presence of polishing or non-mastic striations. Hardy (1996) 



161 
though observed the presence of striations (not embedded in mastic) on the ventral and 
dorsal sides of tutuma-hafted scrapers. Experimental studies by Vaughan (1985:35-36, 
37-44) and Hurcombe (1992:71-78) warn that polishing and striations can occur as the 
result of environment, such as with the presence of rough soils, grit, and alkaline soils. 
There are many differences expressed by Ethiopian hide-workers concerning 
the hide-working process that indicate cultural rather than functional differences in 
stone tool morphology. Although there seem to be some general functional 
consistencies such as a reduction of scraper length, an increase in edge angle, and an 
increase in distal thickness, the mean measurements for these attributes are different 
between each ethnic group. Furthermore, the differences in the hours spent scraping, 
the number of scrapers used, and the amount that a scraper is reduced during scraping 
seems to reflect differences in ethnicity and cultural choice. In addition, the use of 
obsidian and chert, the activities of both scraping and chopping at hides, and the 
scraping of highland and lowland hides seem to be unique so far as known to the 
Gamo people. Although we may be able to discern differences in the tools based on 
these different activities, we must remember that they are Gamo-specific activities and 
thus culturally selected. 



CHAPTER 5 
ETHNIC, REGIONAL, AND POLITICAL-RITUAL DISTRICTS (DERES) AMONG 

THEGAMO 



Archaeologists use stone tools to define cultural complexes, traditions, and 
ethnic groups in European (Bordes 1961; Bordes and de Sonneville-Bordes 1970), 
African (Clark 1954; Goodwin and Van Reit Lowe 1929; Leakey 1953; Phillipson 
1977), and American archaeology (Krieger 1944; Willey and Phillips 1958). A few 
studies even employ lithics to discern intracultural regional and political units (Holmes 
1988; Micheals 1989). However, these studies form no consensus concerning which 
attributes are important for discerning social representation. They also tend to focus on 
lithic reduction sequences, local access to raw material, and trade rather than directly 
associating stone tools with intracultural identities. Yet, lithics are made by individuals, 
whose knowledge of the material world is learned and communicated within specific 
cultural contexts. Stone tools, such as those made and used by the Gamo hide-workers, 
are spatially distributed on the landscape and bear shape-defining attributes, which 
symbolizes their maker's identities. These include membership within a language family 
(interethnic), and more localized subregional (north, central, and south) and socio- 
political districts (deres). 

Interethnic Relationships 

The shared ideology concerning the role of artisans in Omotic societies, 
including the Gamo, provide a partial explanation for the distribution of hide-working 
materials within Gamo society. The Gamo are unique in Ethiopia for their use of two 
different handle types. Functional factors such as differences in use and access to 

162 



163 
resources do not adequately explain the presence of two different handle types among 
the Gamo (see Chapter 4). For instance, it does not explain: 1) why some Gamo people 
never used a zucano even in the past, while others did and still do; 2) the continued use 
of a zucano handle in some highland villages; nor 3) the continued use of a tutuma in 
some lowland regions. 

The Gamo have many Omotic-speaking neighbors, but to date, there is only 
information about the hide-working material culture of the artisan groups for the 
Wolayta (Teshome 1984) and Oyda people (Feyissa 1997). The Wolayta and Oyda, like 
the Gamo, consider artisans to be a submerged group. The Gamo people share cultural 
similarities concerning the role of artisans as healers, circumcisers, and messengers with 
their bordering Omotic-speaking neighbors the Wolayta and Oyda (Table 5-1). 



Table 5-1 : A comparison of artisan categories and roles among the Wolayta, Gamo, and 
Oyda. Degala, chinasha, and mana are the different terms used to define caste groups in 
Omotic societies. 





Wolayta 


Northern 
Gamo 


Southern 
Gamo 


Oyda 


Hide-workers 


degala 


degala 


mana 


mana 


Potters 


chinasha 


chinasha 


mana 


mana 


Healing/ 

Ritual 

Cleansing 


chinasha 


chinasha 


mana 


mana 


Circumcision 


chinasha 


chinasha 


mana 


mana 


Musician 


chinasha 


chinasha 


mana 


mana 


Artisans 
intermarry 


no 


no 


yes 


yes 



The northern Gamo and the Wolayta refer to hide-workers and smiths as degala 
and potters as chinasha. They also share some other cultural characteristics, such as: 1) 
the potters rather than the hide-workers serve as musicians, healers, and circumcizers; 2) 
the artisans do not have their own village leaders; 3) the hide-workers and potters 
represent different social groups and are forbidden from intermarrying; and 4) they share 
some clan names like Zutuma and Boradamala. In addition, the Gamo and the Wolayta 



I 

164 
share a history. Northern Gamo and Wolayta oral history states that in the past there 
were seven brothers, Wolayta, Gamo, Kullo, Gofa, Konta, Kucha, and Borada, who 
moved west of the Omo River to Kinde to settle near Waho Gongolua (a cave). There 
was a dispute and all six brothers left to resettle other areas except for the Wolayta 
(Teshome 1984). The Borada Gamo people share their border with the Wolayta ethnic 
group. The Borada speak the Wolayta language as well as their local Gamocalay. The 
northern Gamo hide-workers are the only ones I interviewed who married women from 
another ethnic group (i.e., the Wolayta). 

The southern Gamo and the Oyda also share some cultural similarities associated 
with the artisans. They both use the word manalmenna to include both potters and hide- 
workers and as such there is intermarriage between the potters and the hide-workers. In 
addition, the hide-workers rather than the potters perform ritual healing and serve as 
musicians. These cultural traits are not seen among the northern Gamo and Wolayta 
artisans. Furthermore, according to the oral history of the Oyda, some of their ritual- 
sacrificers, Kati, claim descent from the Gamo (Feyissa 1997:21). The tradition states 
that in the remote past a woman fled from Gamo, after she was impregnated by the sun, 
and gave birth to twins. The Oyda people were awed by her birth of twins and by her 
cooking skills. The Oyda honored the twins by giving them the position of Kati. 

The neighboring Omotic-speaking ethnic groups have similar handle styles as the 
Gamo people (Figure 5-1). The northern Gamo artisans and the Wolayta both use a 
zucano handle for scraping hides, and both refer to it as a zucano. The Oyda, like the 
southern Gamo, use only the tutuma style handles (Feyissa 1997). The 1995 survey of 
southern Ethiopia hide-workers in which I participated demonstrated that ethnic and 
geographical differences are expressed in the handle, socket, and scraper morphology of 
the Gurage, Sidama, Hadiya, Wolayta, Gamo, and Konso peoples (Brandt 1996; 
Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt and Weedman 2000). The Gamo zucano (two-hafted mastic) 



165 




Lake Zwai 





'<§ Shashamane 



J^LakeAwasa 



LakeAbaya 



N 
k 

50 



KM 



100 



Figure 5-1: Map locating the Gamo, Oyda, and Wolayta people and the handle types 
used by each. 






166 
handles are most similar to the Wolayta two-hafted mastic handles. Geographically, the 
Wolayta peoples live in closest proximity to the Gamo peoples and both ethnic groups 
are Omotic speakers and share similarities in their social and political structures. The 
socket sizes of the two-hafted mastic handles were significantly different from one 
another between all ethnic groups, including the Gamo and Wolayta. Unfortunately, I 
have no measurements of the Oyda handles to compare to the Gamo tutumas. The 
Gamo tutuma (single open haft) socket is very flexible and can accommodate a variety of 
scrapers, which determine the height of the socket. Because of the great variety in the 
Gamo tutuma socket sizes, it was not significantly different from most other handle- 
sockets. However, it is significantly different from its nearest neighbors, the zucanos of 
the Gamo and the Konso handle sockets. 

In the 1995 study, the Gamo unused and used-up scrapers were significantly 
different in breadth, length, and thickness from all other ethnic groups (Sidama, 
Gurage, Konso, and Hadiya) except for the Wolayta (Brandt and Weedman 2000). The 
Gamo and the Wolayta scrapers were similar in thickness, which may be a reflection of 
the fact that they are both Omotic speakers and that there are some Wolayta hide-workers 
who now live among the Gamo people. Unfortunately, there are no other collections of 
scrapers from Omotic societies to compare to the Gamo. 

Informants' primary response to explaining why they use one handle and other 
hide-workers use another type was "Woga," culture, or it is our tradition. An 
interethnic study of hide-working practices suggests that interethnic contact and 
influences may be partially responsible for the presence of two handle types among the 
Gamo people. This fusion of cultural traits suggests a process of ethnogenesis (Moore 
1994). The idea behind ethnogenesis is that ethnic boundaries are flexible and dynamic. 
This process not only helps to explain the diversity concerning the Gamo material 
culture, but also the diverse cultural traits exhibited by the different Gamo subregions 



167 
and their association with other Omotic-speaking groups such as the Wolayta and Oyda, 
while also maintaining their own ethnic identity. 

Intraethnic Subregional Relationships 

The Gamo recognize three distinct geographical and regional differences (north, 
central, and south) within their own culture in terms of types of social and political 
leadership, the social roles of artisans, and material culture (see Chapter 3 for 
ethnographic details). 

Handles 

The distribution of the two types of Gamo hide-working handles is partially 
explained by the interethnic social relationships. A closer examination of the distribution 
indicates that it also reflects regional political and social differences, migration patterns, 
and marriage relationships. 

Today, in general the hide-workers of the northern Gamo use a zucano handle, 
while the southern and central hide-workers use a tutuma handle (Figure 5-2). This 
generally reflects geography with the predominately highland regions of the southern 
and central Gamo using a tutuma handle and the lowland northern Gamo using a zucano 
handle (see Chapter 4). However, there are many exceptions, which render the 
association between environment and handle type inaccurate (see Chapter 4). In 
addition, although there are broad trends associating Gamo subregions (north, central, 
and south) with particular handle forms, there are some exceptions. 

Eleven hide-workers use a tutuma handle in the northern region (see Appendix 
Table B-3). All of these hide-workers are young, and eight of them recently moved into 
the northern region (Borada) area from the central Gamo deres of Doko, Kogo, and 
Zada where tutuma handles are more commonly used. They continue to use tutuma?, 
because this is the handle their fathers taught them how to make and use. One hide- 



168 




Figure 5-2: Map of the present distribution of Gamo handles. 









169 
worker (Yazah Bodeetay) uses a tutuma because his father did and his father moved to 
Borada from Doko. Milkana Hare states that he and his father both use a zucano and 
tutuma handles. Milkana' s cousins who live in Pitay Mulato Borada have never used a 
tutuma handle. Milkana is very young (late teens to early twenties) and his father was 
not present for me to question concerning the lineage's history of tutuma and zucano 
use. The remaining hide-worker, Meecha Chama, who currently uses a tutuma, stated 
that another hide-worker in his village, who is deceased, taught him to use a tutuma. 
Reportedly there were four hide-workers from Zopano in Borada who also use a tutuma 
handle; however this information was second hand from Meecha Chama (who uses a 
tutuma himself), and I was unable to travel to Zopano. 

Among the central Gamo, four elderly men (see Appendix Table B-4) stated that 
they used a zucano handle, as well as a tutuma. However, according to information 
from their sons and other hide-workers, they no longer scrape hides. 

In Zada dere of the central Gamo, there are seven hide-workers who still use a 
zucano, and they all live in Leesha (see Appendix Table B-5). These seven individuals 
either married women, have a mother, or have a hide-worker friend in their village who 
is from or has strong connections to the northern Gamo people. They all state that the 
zucano is stronger and easier to hold and they prefer them to tutumas. Three of these 
individuals have connections in Mulato Borada and the other four are connected to Duma 
Ochollo. 

Only 12 of the other 401 known highland Gamo hide-workers interviewed 
married women of the lowland regions (see Appendix Table B-6). Four of these hide- 
workers live in Shongalay Mogesa and use a zucano handle. Mogesa is at an elevation 
of 2300 meters right on the boundary of the two environmental zones, and the hide- 
workers collect the resources (i.e., mastic) themselves. These hide-workers are the only 
northern hide-workers who live at this high of an elevation. Two other hide-workers 
live in Dorze and married women from Ochollo. In both instances, the women are from 



170 
villages in Ochollo, where the elder hide-workers have died, and the younger hide- 
workers (their brothers and nephews) do not scrape hides. They never learned how to 
scrape hides from their fathers nor did they learn where to get the resources. The father- 
in-laws of three of the other hide-workers were either groundstone makers or smiths. 
Although, two of the hide-workers married women from the baso area their father-in- 
laws had moved to the area from the highlands and used a tutuma. There was only one 
hide-worker, for which I could find no explanation for why he still uses a zucano 
handle, while living in the highlands. His wife was from Kucha (Gofa ethnic group), 
and I do not know the father-in-law's occupation since I did not work in Kucha. I was 
told by many of the Zada hide-workers, however, that there are no hide-workers in 
Kucha; and that they themselves periodically travel and live there to work hides. The 
present use of social relationships among the central Gamo, such as in Zada, to obtain 
access to lowland resources (i.e., zucanos and mastic) led me to question if marriage 
patterns in the past had enhanced access to resources. 

There are cultural regional differences that differentiate the southern, central, and 
northern Gamo peoples, which were reflected in the past use of tutuma handles in the 
south, tutuma and zucano use in central region, and zucano use in the north. It is 
possible that in the past the central Gamo married northern Gamo women more 
frequently to gain easier access to the lowland resources for hide-working. Today, 
however, the primary determinants in handle type use are economic change and 
availability of local resources (see Chapter 4), interactions with other ethnic groups, as 
well as social relationships such as marriage and friendship through which long distance 
resources are acquired inexpensively. The result is that today there is generally tutuma 
use in the south and central subregions and zucano use in the north. 



171 
Scrapers and Site Formation 

The regional use of two handle types among the Gamo people leads us to 
question whether these handles and their sockets affect scraper morphology. We have 
already seen in the above discussion that Gamo scrapers are significantly different as a 
group from other ethnic groups in southern Ethiopia. It is clear that today the southern 
and central Gamo use a tutuma handle and the northern Gamo use a zucano type handle, 
which reflects regional economic and social (marriage and friendship) relationships. 
The question here is if there are internal handle type differences, do the scrapers used in 
the handles also differ based on handle type and thus reflect intra Gamo subregions and 
represent regional ideologies? 

Procurement strategies reflect hafting differences rather than distance to the 
source. The zwcanousing hide-workers of Mogesa and Amure villages walk two and 
four hours, respectively, to their sources. The zucano-users shape the parent chert 
material into a blank before carrying the materials to their home. Zwcano-users are 
particular about the size of the flake they can use because their handle has a closed 
socket. Rather than bringing back a large chunk of raw material and risking making a 
lot of flakes that may not be useful because of their size, the zucano users opt to bring 
back scraper blanks. At the quarry, the zucano-users have an area within the river valley 
where they work in an approximately 2-meter diameter. It has some trees for shading 
and iron billets and large pieces of raw material for future reduction stored nearby. The 
ground in these areas is covered with debitage. They use a small cloth sack or pockets 
to carry ten to twenty scraper blanks back to the village. The number depends on the 
season and amount of hide scraping the hide-worker has for the next week or so. The 
caches are kept in cloth sacks or in wooden bowls inside the household, i.e., they are 
stored in secure areas away from playing children and trampling. The average cache 
contains four blanks with a range from one to eight. The final shaping takes place in the 



172 
household next to the hearth. The hide-workers rest the handle socket next to hearth to 
make the mastic malleable, and when the mastic softens a new scraper is placed within. 

The hide-workers of Eeyahoo and Patela villages, who use a tutuma handle, also 
walk two to four hours, respectively to their sources. The tutuma-users will use most 
flakes that they can get a sharp edge on. Shaping of the laterals is not necessary because 
the haft is open. Furthermore, the tutuma handle is more versatile and can hold thicker 
scrapers than zucano hafts. I have recorded scrapers up to 4.3 cm thick in tutuma hafts. 
Those that use a tutuma handle bring back large chunks of chert material and use almost 
all the reduced flakes for scraping. The tutuma hide-worker will inspect a piece for its 
quality and may reduce it to a manageable size no larger than 20 by 20 cm to bring back 
to the household. Reduction of large pieces is conducted at the location it was found 
and not taken to a reduction area. The reduced nodule is placed in a bag or pocket to be 
brought back to the village. The tutuma hide-workers store the nodules outside on the 
ground within their enset gardens, often near to where they scrape hides. Although, one 
hide-worker places his nodules in a hole in a cut bank wall near his house. The unused 
scrapers and debitage are kept in a broken ceramic bowl, also left outside. When the 
bowl becomes full of lithic waste and used-up scrapers, the hide-worker throws it into 
the enset garden. The hide-worker will use almost any flake that has a good edge. 
When a new scraper is needed in the haft, the hide-worker will either select a flake 
already made or will produce eight to ten new flakes off of a nodule and select one. 
There is no shaping of the flake to fit it into the haft, since the haft is an open one. 
Sharpening may occur on the edge either before or after it is hafted, depending on the 
whim of the hide-worker. 

Zucano scrapers are shaped on the distal, proximal and one or more lateral 
edges. Their unused form resembles what archaeologists refer to as formal tools 
(Figure 5-3). In contrast, there is no real shaping of a tutuma scraper. The distal tip 
simply is sharpened (Figure 5-3). Moreover, they resemble in their unused form what 



173 








L 



4 cm 

_J 



Figure 5-3: Illustration depicting the differences between unused tutuma (A) and zucano 
(B) scrapers. 



174 
we would call utilized flakes, expedient tools, or informal tools. In t-tests the length, 
distal thickness, breadth/length, thickness/length ratio, retouch length, and proximal 
thickness are all significantly different when comparing unused zucano and tutuma 
scrapers (see Appendix Table C-7). However, there is no statistically significant 
difference between the medial breadth, weight, and distal edge angle of unused zucano 
and tutuma scrapers. 

Although there is no statistical difference between the medial breadth of unused 
tutuma and zucano scrapers, this changes with use. The mean breadth of used-up 
zucano and tutuma scrapers is statistically significantly different from one another (see 
Appendix Table C-8). This is probably because tutut?ia-users make use of the laterals 
for scraping and hence reduce them for resharpening, which reduces the original 
breadth of the tool. There is also a statistical difference in the other measurable 
variables of used-up tutuma and zucano scrapers (see Appendix Table C-8). Only 
weight and distal edge angle are not statistically different. 

Unused scrapers could easily be distinguished based on handle type because of 
the formal nature of zucano-hafted scrapers and the relatively informal nature of tutuma- 
hafted scrapers. However, because there is only a small difference in the morphological 
measurements of used-up scrapers (see Appendix Table C-8) it would be difficult to 
determine a visual difference between the two once they are used-up. It is important to 
look at other attributes to try to distinguish used-up scrapers based on hafting type. 

I asked the hide-workers to sort a pile of scrapers in terms of handle type. In the 
tutuma-us'mg village of Eeyahoo, hide-workers stated that thicker scrapers were used in 
tutuma handles and thinner ones in zucano handles. This distinction resulted in a forty- 
one percent correct assessment of zucano scrapers and a seventy-eight percent correct 
assessment of tutuma scrapers. In the village of Amure, which uses a zucano handle 
exclusively, they claimed that tutuma scrapers were longer and that the zucano proximal 
end is shaped to fit in the handle. This resulted in their being fifty percent accurate on 



175 
the sorting of scrapers in terms of handle type. The zucano-using Mogesa hide-workers 
were one hundred percent accurate and stated that only those scrapers that were long and 
had been modified on the laterals and the proximal (which is done to fit into the socket) 
were zucano scrapers. 

Based on the observation of the Mogesa hide-workers, I examined the location 
and type of retouch as a basis for distinguishing used-up zucano and tutuma scrapers 
from one another. Scrapers placed in zucano handles were retouched or shaped on one 
or more lateral sides 64 percent of the time. Once the working edge of a zucano scraper 
is used-up, the scraper is replaced. Therefore, there are usually shaping or resharpening 
scars on all sides of the zucano scrapers. Tutuma scrapers are not shaped on the laterals 
before use and hafting. However, I was given many scrapers by tutuma-users which 
were considered unused, because an edge was unused even though other edges were 
used-up (72/361 or 20 percent). When the utilized edge of a tutuma scraper is used-up, 
often (49 percent of the cases) the scraper is removed and one of the lateral edges or the 
proximal edge is refitted to be used as the next scraping edge. The unused scrapers in 
the tutuma handles are never retouched on the laterals and/or proximal edges unless they 
are partially used. The result is that the morphology of scraper retouch location is 
similar in used-up scrapers for both handle types (Figure 5-4). However, when the 
length of the retouch is compared between the used laterals of the tutuma scrapers and 
the unused but shaped laterals of zucano scrapers there is a significant difference. The 
lateral and proximally used edges of the tutuma scrapers are twice as long in retouch 
length as their zucano counterparts (Table 5-2). 

I also noted there were differences in the breakage patterns and the presence of 
undercutting and dorsal ridge reduction when comparing the scrapers of the two handle 
types. In a sample of 382 tutuma used-up scrapers (Patela and Eeyahoo), only 10 were 
broken (2.6 percent). Tutuma scrapers broke at the medial, distal tip, and in several 
instances into three parts (Figure 5-5). In contrast, the scrapers hafted in zucano 



176 








J L 




Figure 5-4: Illustration depicting the differences between tutuma (A) and zucano (B) 
used-up scrapers. 



177 





4 cm 



Figure 5-5: Illustration depicting the different breakage patterns of tutuma (A) and 
zucano (B) scrapers. 



178 



Table 5-2: Differences in the retouch scar lengths on zucano and tutuma hafted 
scrapers 



Edge Modified 


zucano Scrapers 
Mean Length cm 


tutuma 

Scrapers Mean Length 

cm 


Distal Used 


1.00(n=487) 


1.1 (n=198) 


Left Lateral Unused 


0.39(n=133) 


- 


Left Lateral Used 




0.81 (n=38) 


Right Lateral Unused 


0.40(n=151) 


~ 


Right Lateral Used 


- 


0.80 (n=36) 


Proximal Unused 


0.39 (n=60) 


- 


Proximal Used 


- 


0.84 (n=17) 



handles (Amure and Mogesa) broke only slightly more frequently (32/492) at 6.5 
percent, but all but one of these scrapers broke at the medial (Figure 5-5). The latter is 
probably the result of the mastic holding the proximal part of the tool into the socket. 
The absence of mastic fixing in the tutuma handle allows more ways for the tool to 
break. 

Two other elements that seem to be the result of hafting occurred only on 
scrapers that were used in the zucano or closed socketed mastic handles. The creation of 
an undercut or exaggerated step fracturing occurred when the mastic holds the upper part 
of the material jn place but the resharpening force removes the under side (See Chapter 
2, Figure 2-4 (A) for illustration). During retouch, the mastic securing the dorsal-back 
into the socket occasionally caused a situation in which stone was removed under the 
dorsal backing, forming an undercut. This occurred on 2.8 percent (14/492) of the 
zucano-hafted scrapers, but not on any of the tutuma scrapers. Secondly, if the dorsal 
ridge of a scraper were too thick for a closed haft, sometimes the hide-worker would 
reduce it resulting in flake scars along the dorsal ridge of the tool. The intentional 
removal of material from the dorsal ridge of many zucano-hafted scrapers occurred in 
3.5 percent (33/940) of the assemblage, but none of the tutuma-hafted scrapers. I 



179 
examined a sample of the scrapers using a 20X hand-lens and saw no striations, lateral 
crushing, or dorsal crushing. 

I also looked at the dorsal scar pattern, planform, platform location, and cross- 
section of each scraper, to determine if there were differences between the scrapers of 
the two handle types. The dorsal scar patterns of unused zucano is dominated by a 
radial pattern (see Appendix Figure D-5). Unused tutuma scrapers have the most dorsal 
scar pattern variation including parallel, radial, irregular, and opposed forms. The 
presence of opposed and radial patterns is unexpected as tutuma scrapers are rarely 
shaped before hafting and they do not seem to be from prepared cores. A chi-square test 
confirms that there are significantly more zucano-hafted scrapers with a radial dorsal 
scar pattern (see Appendix Table C-9). Both the used-up zucano and tutuma scrapers 
predominately have a radial dorsal scar pattern due to the shaping and/or use of the 
laterals and the proximal edges 

Planforms are dominated by short quadrilateral, short elliptical, and long oval 
types (see Appendix Figure D-6). Tutuma unused scrapers are dominated by short 
quadrilateral planform (79 percent compared to 46 percent of zucanos). Unused zucano 
scrapers exhibit a wider range of planforms, which may be the result of shaping the 
laterals and proximal to fit in the socket. A chi-square test confirms that there is a 
significantly wider range of scraper planforms associated with zucano hafted scrapers 
than tutuma hafted scrapers (see Appendix Table C-10). Used-up tutuma scrapers 
though exhibit a wider range of planforms, which probably is a result of the extensive 
modification applied to tutuma scrapers during use. 

Although, both scraper types exhibited a wide range of cross-sections, the 
tutuma scrapers had a higher percentage of lenticular cross-sections (45 percent 
compared to 27 percent) and the zucano scrapers demonstrated a higher percentage of 
plano-convex cross-sections (38 percent compared to 1 7 percent) (see Appendix Figure 
D-7). The latter is probably the result of shaping the edges for hafting, which would 



180 
create steeper edges. A chi-square test confirmed this significant difference between the 
cross-sections of unused tutuma and zucano scrapers (see Appendix Table C-l 1). 

An interesting pattern emerges when the platform type and location is explored 
(see Appendix Figure D-7). Thirty-six percent of the tutuma unused scrapers have 
remnants or whole platforms compared to twenty-four percent of the zucano unused 
scrapers. Most platforms on the unused zucano scrapers (76 percent) were not present 
or trimmed away compared to unused tutuma scrapers (64 percent). Unused tutuma 
scrapers exhibit a wider range of platform locations, which supports earlier statements 
that tutuma-users utilize almost any flake type with a sharp edge. I believe this 
difference can be explained by the fact that before use, zucano scrapers are shaped more 
causing the more frequent removal of the platform and signs of its original location than 
tutuma scrapers. Unfortunately, a chi-square test determined that these differences were 
not significant (see Appendix Table C-l 2). 

Finally, hafting type also influences site formation process, in terms of scraping 
location and primary discard location (Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7). The location of hide 
scraping within a household compound is dependent on the environmental location of 
the hide-worker village. Since the distribution of current handle types is also partially 
based on environmental location, scraping location and handle type are linked. In the 
tutuma-us'mg highlands, the houses are framed with bamboo and covered with thatch. 
Those hide-workers who live in the highland region claim that when scraping, the frame 
shakes and presses against the house and causes it to loose its thatching and become 
unstable. So they tend to scrape outside the house on a frame located within their enset 
garden. In the zucano using lowland region, the houses are constructed with mud and 
wood walls and topped with a thatched roof. The lowland hide-workers claim they 
scrape inside because the sun dries the hides out too quickly if they work outside. 
Consequently, they have a frame located inside their household and are not concerned 
with the frame shaking loose the wall thatching. 



181 




wm^-^y^m^-. 



Figure 5-6: Plan map of a zucano-using household illustrating activity and storage areas 
associated with hide-working practices. 



182 




Figure 5-7: Plan map of a tutuma-using household illustrating activity and storage areas 
associated with hide-working practices. 



183 
Zucano scrapers need to be removed with the aid of a hearth to make the mastic 
malleable for scraper removal. Tutuma scrapers do not require a hearth for scraper 
removal. Thus, zucano scrapers can often be found in the household near the hearth or 
near the inside-scraping frame. The tutuma scrapers are rarely found in the household, 
but more often within the enset garden near the outside scraping frame. The Gamo 
scrapers and handles express variation, which reflects socio-political regional 
differences. The two handle types represent a north and south division representing 
internal cultural differences. In turn, the use of two handle types results in the 
production of two different scraper morphologies and differences lithic household 
spatial distributions (Table 5-3). 



Table 5-3:Summary of the scraper and site formation differences between Gamo 
subregions. 





South and Central 
subregions 


North subregion 


Past Handle Type 


zucano and tutuma 


zucano 


Present Handle Type 


tutuma 


zucano 


Unused Scraper 
Morphology 


informal/expedient 


formal 


Used-up Scraper 
Morphology 


3 or more edges used 


1 edge used 


Scraper Shaping Location 


at home 


at quarry 


Scraper Storage Location 


outside home 


inside home 


Scraping Hide Location 


outside home 


inside home 


Scraper Removal 
Location 


outside near frame 


at hearth 


Final Discard of Scraper 


in garden 


in lithic trash pits 



Intraethnic Dere Relationships 

Each Gamo region is made up of two or more ritual-political districts or deres. 
As stated in Chapter 1, traditionally there were ten political divisions or deres among the 
Gamo people: Kamba, Bonke, Doko, Kogo, Dorze, Ochollo, Ganta, Borada, Zada, and 
Dita. 



184 
In scraper pile sorting tests, the hide-workers stated that they did not know about 
scrapers of other deres and so could not select scrapers based on dere membership. 
Although the hide-workers travel to two or more markets a week and often meet hide- 
workers of other deres, they more frequently socialize with hide-workers of the same 
dere who more regularly visit the same markets. They also do not carry with them their 
finished scrapers nor exchange scrapers in blank, unused, or used-up forms. However, 
dere membership is very important to the degala, as it is within this context that he 
travels and performs rituals (healer, circumcision, and messenger) in exchange for his 
economic and social security. It is also the community level on which degala Halakas 
and elders meet to resolve issues that concern them such as impending marriages, 
farming, disputes, and other grievances. 

Handles 

An analysis of handle length and width dimensions within Gamo indicates that 
there are differences in the size of each handle type in each of the deres studied. 
Statistical tests were not possible because of the small sample size for each dere. I 
measured all the handles in Doko, Dorze, and Ochollo, as the number of hide-workers 
living in these deres is extremely low. In Kogo and Doko, zucanos are no longer used, 
but a few individuals still had them around. There are no measurements for Kamba and 
Ganta because these hide-workers use an iron axe to scrape hides. Although some 
Kamba and Ganta hide-workers use a tutuma handle, I met them at the market place, and 
they did not have their handles with them for me to measure. In addition, I interviewed 
Dita hide-workers in the Zada and Doko Mesho markets and so do not have handle 
measurements for them. 

Figure 5-8 illustrates that the handles express exchange relationships between the 
different deres. In the past, Kogo, Zada, and Doko hide-workers purchased at the 
Kogo Ezo market their mastic and zucano handles, which originally came from Borada. 



185 
This may explain why the dimensions of the Borada, Doko, and Kogo zucano handles 
cluster more closely with each other than with the Ochollo handles. The Zada hide- 
workers who currently use zucanos get their mastic and handles from Ochollo and 
Borada. The Zada zucano handles are morphologically between the Borada and Ochollo 
clusters. The Ochollo zucano also is different from the Borada zucano because it has 
only a single socket. The zucanos used in Zada, Kogo, and Doko also have two 
sockets. 

No one in Ochollo uses tutumas. However, individuals who have recently 
moved to Borada from Doko, Zada, and Kogo still use tutumas. They continue to use 
tutumas because it was the handle that they learned to use from their father. Figure 5-9 
illustrates that there are distinctly two types of tutuma handles, i.e., Bonke and a cluster 
representing the remaining deres. The Bonke handle is much longer than other tutumas 
and this is probably a regional expression. As stated above, I do not have 
measurements for the other two southern deres, Kamba and Ganta. However, they did 
state that their handles were long like the Bonke handles, rather than short like the Doko 
handle. There is a strong clustering of Borada, Zada, Kogo, Doko, and Dorze tutumas 
that reflects a central Gamo expression in hafting. The Borada tutuma more closely 
cluster with the central than the southern deres because the individuals who have 
tutumas in Borada moved there from the central Gamo region. 

The socket size of a handle is potentially important for influencing stone tool 
morphology. It was not possible to measure the socket depth of the zucano type handle 
because of the presence of either a scraper in the socket or mastic filling the socket. The 
depth of the tutuma socket generally extended half the length of the tutuma, as it is 
simply a transverse split in the piece of wood. The mean breadth/length ratio of the 
Borada zucano sockets are within the size range of Doko, Zada, and Kogo, areas which 
previously obtained their zucanos from Borada (Figure 5-10). The Doko and Kogo 
tutuma sockets are similar in size to the Borada tutuma sockets (Figure 5-11). This may 



186 
be an expression of the fact that the individuals who use tutumas in Borada today 
recently moved there from Doko and Kogo. 

Although the sample sizes are very small in some cases, I attempted to compare 
the sockets in a two-sample/tailed t-test. The t-tests indicated significant differences 




S **t h 



't 



* * * ?sf * " 

*w, Q ° 1 <° 



$» 



& 



\P 



Legend 

B Borada (n=59) Z Zada (n=6) K Kogo (n=5) D Doko (n=2) O Ochollo (n=5) 



Figure 5-8: Graph illustrating the differences between dere zucano handles. 



between most zucano dere handle sockets except for those between 1) Borada and Kogo 
and 2) Zada and Kogo (see Appendix Table C-13). As stated earlier, the Zada and 
Kogo people purchased their handle in the past from Borada hide-workers, which may 



187 
explain why the sockets are similar. The Doko and Ochollo sample sizes were too small 
to render an accurate statistical test. In terms of the tutuma hafts, there is not a 
significant difference between any of the dere tutuma hafts (see Appendix Table C-14). 
This may be because haft size of the tutuma?, is extremely variable, because the height 
depends on the thickness of the inserted scrapers. 




^t h/ O o Q ^ g * ^ 



VI 



en 



9th 



^° 






Legend 

BBorada(n=ll) ZZada(n=44) K Kogo (n=52) D Doko (n=24) 

dDorze (n=16) b Bonke (n=7) 



Figure 5-9: Graph illustrating the differences and similarities of dere tutuma handles. 



188 



u 



\ 

s 



2.5 
2 

1.5 
1 

0.5 







4t5 



1.2 



0.87 



2.25 



1.3 



0.8 



1.75 



1.38 



4t5- 



ZadaZucano BoradaZucano KogoZucano DokoZucano 
(n=13) (n=116) (n=10) (n=3) 

Dere 



1.6 



1.4 
1.2 



Ochollo 
Zucano 
(n=5) 



Figure 5-10: Graph comparing the mean breadth/length ratio ranges of zucano sockets 
among the Gamo deres. 



25 
20 
15 
10 





22.5 








1 1 


- 12.5 






7 


7.5 


8.75 

A Q 




r 1.4 


■4.4 

1 


■3 

1 

i 


■3.2 

1 

- i 


■ 4.5* 

1.3 


1.3 



Borada Zada 

Tutuma Tutuma 

(n=10) (n=44) 



Kogo Doko Dorze Bonke 

Tutuma Tutuma Tutuma Tutuma 

(n=52) (n=24) (n=16) (n=7) 

Dere 



Figure 5-11: Graph comparing the mean breadth/length ratio ranges of tutuma sockets 
among the Gamo deres. 



189 
Scrapers 

A comparison of the unused scraper morphology in terms of breadth/length 
ratio, thickness/length ratio, and mean length indicates a distribution based on regional 
distinction (north, central, and south) and exchange relationships (Figure 5-12, see 
Appendix Table C-15 for data). Bonke unused scrapers are isolated from other unused 
scrapers representing a distinct type. Bonke alone represents the southern region of 
Gamo, since I did not collect scrapers from Ganta and Kamba. The Ochollo zucano, 
Borada zucano, Kogo tutuma, and Dorze tutuma unused scrapers cluster closely 
together. Dorze and Kogo hide-workers obtained their chert raw materials from Borada 
and Ochollo and this may explain the similarity. Furthermore, Borada tutuma scrapers 
are located in length between Zada and Doko and Kogo scrapers. This is interesting in 
light of the fact that individuals using tutuma handles in Borada are from these other 
areas of Gamo. 

T-tests (see Appendix Table C-16) indicated a significant difference between all 
unused scrapers in terms of dere membership especially concerning breath-length ratio, 
thickness/length ratio, retouch scar length, and distal thickness. However, there was 
not a statistical difference between the mean length of Dorze and Kogo scrapers. Dorze 
hide-workers, from whom my collection was gathered, said that they were originally 
from Doyna, which is part of Kogo. Unfortunately, no other hide-workers in Dorze 
currently use stone to make another comparison. This may provide an explanation for 
the similarities in the scrapers between these two deres. The statistical similarities in 
length of the Ochollo and Borada zucano and breadth of the Ochollo and Borada tutumas 
may be a reflection of similar handle types in the former and subregional membership in 
both instances. In addition, the Dorze and Ochollo scrapers have a similar mean length. 
This may be explained by raw material size constraints, as the hide-workers from both 
these deres share a similar raw material source along the Baso River. 



190 




• 0^ ur. 



Legend 

South - B Bonke (n=27) 

Central - K Kogo (n=30) Z Zada (n=292) D Dorze (n=31) 

North - 1 Borada tutuma (n=82) z Borada zucano (n=473) O Ochollo (n=40) 



Figure 5-12: Graph illustrating the clustering patterns of dere unused scrapers. 



I have no explanation for the similarities between the breadth of Bonke and 
Kogo unused scrapers and the similar length of Bonke tutuma and Borada tutuma 
unused scrapers. When the breadth-length ratios and distal thickness are statistically 
compared, there are significant differences between all deres. It should be clear that 
although there are some similarities expressed with individual scraper traits between 
different deres, in no instance are there two deres that have the same dimensions for 
length, breadth, and thickness. Breadth-length ratio, distal thickness, retouch scar 
length, and thickness/length ratio of unused scrapers would seem to be a good indicator 
for discerning local political relationships. 



191 
The graphic illustration of the used-up scrapers suggests three clusters of used- 
up scrapers 1) Kogo; 2) Zada and Bonke; and 3) Dorze, Ochollo, and all Borada 
scrapers (Figure 5-13, see Appendix Table C-17 for data). The similarity between 
Borada and Ochollo used-up zucano and tutuma scrapers suggests that there is a similar 
mental template or a shared understanding of when a scraper is used-up, which does not 
rely on handle type. 

However, the Borada used-up scrapers also cluster with the Dorze used-up 
scrapers and the Bonke and Zada used-up scrapers cluster. I know of no social 
relationships, which would cause this clustering. However, if we look at a map of the 
political districts (see Chapter 3, Figure 3-3), we should note that Kogo is nearest to 
Zada and Borada. These deres may have different scraper morphologies to differentiate 
themselves most strongly from their nearest neighbor. The clustering of Dorze with 
Borada and Zada with Bonke may indicate that signaling is not as necessary between 
these groups because they are not geographic neighbors. Furthermore, Ochollo has 
been at war in the past with both Bonke and Kogo and does not cluster with either one 
of them. Despite previous disputes between Ochollo and Dorze, their scraper 
morphology is similar which may again be a reflection of raw material source along the 
Baso River. Surprisingly, the mean length of the Kogo used-up scrapers is longer than 
the other deres,. The Kogo sample is the only one I have which obtains its resource 
through trade and not directly at the quarry, which may affect how long a tool is used 
before discarded. The Kogo hide-workers may discard their scrapers after a shorter 
time of use than other hide-workers because the material is easier to obtain. Hence, it 
requires less effort to obtain scraper materials at the market where one goes anyway for 
other products, than to make a special trip to the stone quarry. 

A comparison of the used-up scrapers in t-tests (see Appendix Table C-18) 
indicate significant differences between the dere scrapers, except for: 1) mean length of 



192 




Legend 

South - B Bonke (n=29) 

Central - K Kogo (n=32) Z Zada (n=223) D Dorze (n=24) 

North - 1 Borada tutuma (n=187) z Borada zucano (n=565) O Ochollo (n=22) 

Figure 5-13: Graph illustrating the clustering patterns of dere used-up scrapers. 

Zada and Dorze, Bonke and Ochollo, Borada tutuma and Ochollo, Ochollo and Borada 
zucano; 2) mean breadth of tutuma and zucano Borada and Ochollo scrapers; and 3) 
distal thickness between Dorze and Borada tutumas. For most of these, I have no 
explanations for their similarities. Although Ochollo and Borada may be similar in used- 
up length because they share a similar handle type- the zucano. Once again, though it 
should be clear that although there are some similarities expressed between the 
morphologies of scrapers from different deres, in no instance are their two deres that 
have the same dimensions for length, breadth, and thickness. In addition, like the 






193 
unused scrapers there is a consistent significant difference between the breadth/length 
ratios of all the used-up dere scrapers. There was not a significant difference concerning 
the edge angles and weights between the different deres. 

I also compared the macro-morphological differences such as: planform, dorsal 
scar pattern, and cross-section of the unused and used-up scrapers in terms of dere 
membership. I wanted to see if there were visual differences between the clusters of 
unused and used-up scrapers, which were not statistically significant in terms of 
morphological measurements in length, breadth, and thickness. Primarily there were 
not significant differences between: 1) the unused and used-up lengths of Borada 
tutumas and zucano scrapers and Ochollo scrapers and 2) the Dorze and Ochollo 
scrapers (Table 5-4). 



Table 5-4: Summary comparing the significant scraper for identifying dere membership. 



Dere 
comparisons 


Similar 
Unused 
metric 
measurements 


Dissimilar 
Unused 
Macro- 
morphology 


Similar 
Used-up 
Metric 
measurements 


Dissimilar 
Used-up 
Macro- 
Morph- 
ology 


Bonke & 

Borada 

tutuma 


length 


dorsal scar 






Bonke & 
Kogo 


breadth 


dorsal scar 


- 


- 


Kogo & 
Dorze 


length 




- 


- 


Ochollo & 
Dorze 


length 


planform 


- 


- 


Ochollo & 

Borada 

Zucano 


length 


planform 


length 




Ochollo & 

Borada 

Tutuma 


breadth 


planform 


length & breadth 




Ochollo & 
Bonke 


- 


- 


length & 
breadth 


- 


Dorze & 

Borada 

tutuma 






distal thickness 




Dorze & 

Zada 


- 


- 


length 


dorsal scar 



194 

The dominate planform shape for all unused and used-up scrapers is short 
quadrilateral, though Bonke and Borada tutumas have more short quadrilateral scrapers, 
and Zada and Borada zucano short elliptic scrapers (see Appendix Figures D-8 and D- 
9). The only two striking differences are between Ochollo zucano and Borada zucano 
unused scrapers, which is interesting in light of their statistically similar measurements 
discussed above. The Ochollo zucano scrapers tend to have a long triangular shape and 
the Borada zucano scrapers have about an equal percentage of long oval and short 
quadrilateral shapes. In addition, the Dorze have a different planform from the Ochollo 
as the former has more short quadrilateral form. Therefore, although they may not be 
statistically different in terms of length, they are different in their planform morphology. 

In terms of dorsal scar patterns, radial, irregular two-directions, and opposed 
dominate the tutuma scrapers of Dorze, Kogo, Zada, and Borada (see Appendix Figure 
D-10 and Dl 1). Opposed and irregular patterns are especially dominant among Dorze, 
Kogo, and Borada tutuma scrapers. While a radial pattern is very dominate among 
Bonke tutuma scrapers and the zucano Ochollo and Borada scrapers. The dorsal scar 
pattern provides another avenue for discerning unused Bonke scrapers (radial) from 
unused Borada tutuma (opposed and irregular two-direction). 

Lastly, a comparison of the cross-section based on dere membership indicates a 
dominant lenticular, triangular, and plano-convex morphology for unused scrapers and 
used-up scrapers (see Appendix Figures D-12 and D-13). The scrapers of Bonke are 
more plano-convex while the Borada tutuma scrapers are more lenticular and triangular 
in cross-section. Ochollo scrapers are lenticular, Borada zucano scrapers are more 
plano-convex, and Borada tutuma mostly triangular. Thus, although there are 
similarities in Bonke and Borada tutuma length, Ochollo and Borada zucano length and 
Ochollo and Borada tutuma width, cross-section form differentiates them from one 
another. 



195 
The handle morphology of the different deres cluster, in terms of regional 
membership and exchange relationships. For instance, Kogo, Doko, and Borada 
zucano handles share a similar morphology, and Kogo and Doko handles were 
purchased from makers in the Borada dere. In addition, Borada tutuma handles are 
most similar to those from Kogo, Zada, and Doko, where the owners of the Borada 
tutumas came from. Furthermore, the socket breadth/height ratio of the Borada tutumas 
is more similar to those of Kogo and Doko than those from Dita or Dorze. Scrapers are 
differentiated based on dere membership, and statistically significantly different in terms 
of breadth/length ratio, thickness/length ratio, distal thickness, and retouch scar length. 
In general, dere scrapers are significantly different in terms of their mean breadth, 
length, and thickness measurements. There were some similarities however, as the 
unused Borada and Ochollo scrapers are not statistically different in unused and used-up 
length and unused breadth, they are different in terms of their planform and cross- 
sections. Cross-section also differentiates Dorze and Ochollo scrapers. In addition, 
dorsal scar pattern discerns Bonke from Borada tutuma scrapers. Most significantly is a 
statistical difference of the breadth/length ratio corresponding to each dere for both 
unused and used-up scrapers suggesting a shared mental template concerning scraper 
form on the dere level. 

Discussion 

Scraper, handle, and socket morphologies and spatial locations reflect the ethnic, 
subregional, and dere membership of their makers. Although there have been no other 
ethnoarchaeological studies focusing on group membership and stone tools, 
ethnoarchaeological studies of pottery (Hodder 1977, 1982) and spear points (Larick 
1985; Wiessner 1983, 1985) also demonstrate ethnic and language group cohesion as 
expressed in material culture. In addition, an examination of the historical record 
indicates that different ethnic groups around the world had different cultural rules that 



196 
govern technological strategies resulting in a variety of methods used for achieving the 
same ends, such as scraping hides. Historically, a variety of mediums have been used 
to haft stone scrapers including bone, antler, horn, ivory, and wood in North America 
(Ewers 1930; Hiller 1948; Lowie 1935:74-79; Mason 1889; Murdoch 1988 (1892):295- 
298; Nelson 1899: 116-1 17; Nissen and Dittemore 1974), Australia (Aiston 1929, 1930; 
Allchin 1957; Gould 1980:128-129; Gould et al. 1971; Tindale 1965:133-135; White et 
al. 1977), and Africa (Clark 1958b; Deacon 1966; Rudner 1979). They also used 
different methods to bind the tools in the socket including: filling the socket with a 
pitch/resin of tree gum and grasses, packing the socket with hide/canvas, and lashing the 
handle externally with pieces of hide and sinew. 

Similarly, a comparison of southern Ethiopian hide-working practices 
demonstrates difference in hafting and scrapers divisible in terms of ethnic group 
membership. The Gamo handle, sockets, and scrapers are morphologically distinct 
from Cushitic and Ethio-Semitic ethnic groups, but share similarities with other Omotic 
ethnic groups (Brandt and Weedman 2000). The hide-working materials of Omotic 
societies are used for many other occasions especially concerning marriage, initiation, 
and death ceremonies in which the role of the hide-worker as mediator is exacerbated. 
This shared ideology concerning the role of hide-workers in Omotic society is reflected 
in a similar material culture. Hence, the presence of two distinct handle types among the 
Gamo is in turn partially the product of interaction with other Omotic ethnic groups. 
The Gamo southern and central hide-workers use a tutuma handle like their Omotic 
speaking neighbors to the west, the Oyda. The Gamo northern hide-workers use a 
zucano handle like their Omotic speaking neighbors, the Wolayta. Yet, statistically the 
morphological measurements of the handles and hafts are different. 

In addition, the Gamo hide-workers express an overall scraper morphology that 
was significantly different from other ethnic groups, suggesting the presence of a Gamo 
shared mental template (Brandt et al. 1996; Brandt and Weedman 2000). In contrast to 



197 
my findings, Meltzer (1981) argues that a morphological (width, length, thickness, and 
tool weight) cross-cultural comparison of North African and Eastern North American 
scraper assemblages indicates that modification is not sufficient to change overall tool 
morphology expressing cultural differences. Meltzer (1981) states that "endscraper 
morphology is simply a reflection of functional variability, and thus it will be relatively 
uniform (ahistorical) through time and space" (326). However, other archaeological 
studies of stone tools, including scrapers, emphasize differences in ethnic, regional, and 
local political districts but form no consensus concerning which attributes are important 
for discerning social representation and at which level (Bordes 1961, Close 1989, 
Sackett 1982b). For instance, Close (1989) used retouch types on backed bladelets to 
discern social groups in Late Paleolithic Nile Valley assemblages. Bordes (1961, 1973) 
examines variation in the cross-section and planform of tool shapes to determine cultural 
differences during the Mousterian. Yet, Sackett (1982b), examining tools from the 
same period argues that only a multivariate analysis is diagnostic of ethnicity. 

Many archaeological studies of intracultural or regional and local political 
districts (Ericson 1984; Johnson 1996; Micheals 1989; Nassaney 1996) focus on local 
access to resources and trade rather than differences in identity to explain lithic variation. 
The emphasis is on lithic reduction sequences rather than on tool attributes and 
morphology. However, a combination of spatial analysis, reduction sequences, and 
tool attributes provides a multivariate approach to understanding the expression of 
identity in material culture. 

The Gamo use two different scraper types to do the same work, i.e., scraping 
cattle hides. This is remarkable because it suggests that stone tools used within a single 
culture for the exact same function can express significant variation based on internal 
social differences. Gamo scraper morphology is discernable in terms of a north and 
south subregional membership. Today, the distribution of handle types in Gamo society 
differentiates the southern and central Gamo tutuma-users from the northern Gamo 






198 
zucano-users. The regional hafting differences provide for the presence of two distinct 
scraper types and site formation processes. The scrapers made for closed-hafted mastic 
handle, zucano, had an unused formal scraper morphology and sometimes exhibited 
reduction of the dorsal ridge to fit the scraper into the haft. Zucano scrapers are shaped 
at the quarry and kept safely inside the household. In contrast, the scrapers of the open- 
nonmastic tutuma handles expressed an informal unused morphology with little if any 
shaping of the flake. The tutuma scrapers are shaped at the household right before use, 
and the nodules of raw material are kept outside the household. The used-up zucano 
scrapers sometimes have an undercut as the result of resharpening in a mastic haft. If 
they break, they usually break along the medial plane. Furthermore, only a single edge, 
the distal, is used for scraping and resharpening. The shaped lateral retouch scars of the 
zucano are much shorter in length than the retouch scars left on edges that have been 
used and resharpened on tutuma scrapers. The used-up tutuma scrapers never have an 
undercut on the used edge and if they break, they do so in a variety of patterns. The 
hide-workers also often use several different edges of the tutuma-hafted scraper to work 
the hide. In summary, subregional hide-working practices among the Gamo are 
expressed in distinctive handles, scrapers, and household spatial distribution of stone 
materials. 

However, morphological differences in hafting and scrapers go beyond 
expressing Gamo ethnic and subregional groups, they also express dere membership. 
Geographical features such as mountain ridges and rivers separate these internal ritual- 
political districts. The dere handles cluster in terms of subregions and social and 
economic relationships. In no instance, were all the scraper attributes of one dere the 
same as the entire scraper attributes from another dere. Most importantly all dere 
scrapers were significantly different from one another in terms of the shape defining 
ratios of breadth/length and thickness/length. 



199 
The concept of bounded homogeneous cultures has led archaeologists to turn to 
functional explanations when they are faced with intracultural material variation. 
However, stone tool analysis points to the importance of examining internal social 
variation as a normal aspect of ethnicity. Furthermore, social group membership is not 
simply expressed within a single visual or metric attribute of a stone tool, but rather in 
the stone tool's shape defining attributes and its location within the landscape. When 
searching for explanations of intracultural variation in stone tools, archaeologists should 
consider social group membership and function to be equally important. A scale of 
analysis methodology allows archaeologists to evaluate the roles of both style and 
function in material culture. 



CHAPTER 6 
KINSHIP AND LOCAL GAMO IDENTITIES 



Archaeological models relating style to kinship, in which patterns of descent 
and residence account for the transmission of style from one generation to the next, 
have taken hold in the examination of ceramic assemblages (Arnold 1989; Longacre 
1981; Stanislawski 1977). Yet, only a few archaeologists analyze stone tools in terms 
of kinship relationships by focusing on learning groups (Close 1977, 1989) and 
coresidential units (Rick 1980:314-316). Even if kinship relationships are related to 
artifact variation, archaeologists are still left with the question of whether or not 
differences and similarities are transmitted and created consciously or unconsciously. 
Perhaps there is a conscious intentional action on the part of the hide-worker to 
produce a stone scraper that conforms with his father's stone scraper, which represents 
their social identities as members of a particular patrilineal clan. On the other hand, 
the hide-worker may unconsciously make specific and consistent choices based on 
options limited by his clan and lineage membership. 

Gamo hide-workers learn stone tool production and use from their fathers. 
Since postmarital residence is virilocal, the knowledge of stone tool production is 
transmitted and remains within a particular village location. Gamo stone tool 
morphological and spatial variation should reflect the degree of communication 
between individuals. Individuals of the same moiety, clan, and lineage, who live and 

200 



201 
learn from one another, should share a mental template concerning handle and scraper 

morphology and distribution. 

Moieties: Handles and Scrapers 

In Gamo society, as discussed in Chapter 3, there is a division of clans into two 
exogamous groups, mala and dogala (i.e., moiety system). Although men marry 
women from an opposite moiety, men learn hide-working from their fathers. Even if 
they obtain resources through their wives, the final products resemble their father's 
work rather than that of their fathers-in-law. Hence, I expect that handles, sockets, 
and scrapers will reflect differences in moiety membership. 

A three-dimensional graph comparing the moiety handles indicates a strong 
difference between handle types rather than moiety membership (Figure 6-1). 
However in a t-test, there is a significant difference between the mean values of 
breadth/length ratios of dogala and mala tutuma handles and between dogala and 
mala zucano handles (see Appendix Table C-19). There was only a statistical 
significant difference in the dogala and mala zucano sockets; the tutuma sockets were 
not significantly different from one another. Again, this may be attributable to the fact 
that the height of a tutuma haft is directly related to the size scraper placed within and 
is highly variable. The latter suggests that handle morphology is distinguishable based 
on moiety membership. 

In addition to representation of moiety membership through handle 
morphology, scraper morphology is statistically significantly different between the 



202 




* * 8 %* ** 



-^ 



^th 



^t 



lo 



Legend 

D dogala tutuma (n=l 12) d dogala zucano (n=48) 
M mala tutuma (n=41) m mala zucano (n=28) 

Figure 6-1: Graph illustrating the clustering of moiety handles by handle type rather 
than moiety membership. 



two moieties in terms of length, width, and thickness (see Appendix Table C-20 and 
C-21). However, I was concerned that perhaps one moiety in my sample had more of 
one handle type than the other and that this would skew the scraper results (see 
Chapter 5 for scraper differences based on handle types). 

Figure 6-2 demonstrates that there is a difference in the number and percentage 
of unused and used-up scrapers used in zucano and tutuma handles within each 



203 
moiety. There are more dogala moiety hide-workers with tutuma-hafted scrapers and 

more mala moiety hide-workers with zucano-hafted scraper. The latter may account 

for the scraper differences between the two moieties, as in Chapter 5 it has already 

been demonstrated that there are significant differences in the scraper morphologies of 

the two handle types. 

The division of moieties by handle type is probably related to settlement 
patterns. Lineages rarely move and as such, there are territories occupied by particular 
clans, and because of clan clustering there are moiety clusters. In my scraper 
collection, 100 percent of the unused (n=260) and 98 percent (n=366) of the used-up 
mala moiety scrapers are from Borada and Ochollo, where hide-workers 
predominately use zucano handles. Though as discussed previously in Chapter 3, 
there are eleven hide-workers living in these deres, who use tutuma handles. In 
contrast, only 41 percent of the unused (n=279) and 56 percent of the used-up (n=379) 
dogala moiety scrapers are from Borada and Ochollo deres. These regional 
differences offer an explanation for the handle-scraper type ratio differences observed 
between the dogala and mala moieties. 

Although, my scraper collection is unbalanced in terms of handle type, moiety, 
and dere, my survey information indicates that there are actually about the same 
percentage of mala and dogala hide-workers in each dere (Figure 6-3). This allows, 
as discussed in Chapter 3, individuals to marry within their dere to individuals of the 
opposite moiety. My collection was skewed because many of the mala clans living in 
the highland areas (Zada, Kogo, Dorze, and Doko) now predominately use glass, 
which I did not collect. 



204 



w 



a 
at 

4» 




Dogala Mala Dogala Mala 

unused unused used-up used-up 

(n=680) (n=260) (n=677) (n=372) 

Moiety 



■ Zucano 
□ Tutuma 



Figure 6-2: Comparison of moiety unused scrapers demonstrating the higher 
percentage of tutuma handles used by the dogala and a higher percentage of zucano 
handles by the mala moiety 



To determine if each moiety has a unique scraper form regardless of handle 
type, I compared unused and used scrapers divided in terms of moiety and handle 
types. This analysis also resulted in significant differences (see Appendix Table C-22 
and Table C-23). In summary, tutuma dogala and mala scrapers were significantly 
different than one another, as were zucano dogala and mala scrapers concerning most 
of the dimensions compared (length, breadth, thickness, breadth/length, and 



thickness/length). 









205 




Dogala (n=347) 



Mala (n=206) 



Figure 6-3: Graph illustrating a similar number of individuals in each dere who are 
members of the dogala and mala moieties. 



Hence, the data confirm a shared knowledge of handle, haft, and scraper 
morphology within each moiety. The next section examines clan membership and 
handle type to determine if morphology of handle and scrapers are significantly 
different at this level of group identity. 

Clans: Handles and Scrapers 



Clans were identified as important to the hide-workers. Individuals with the 
same clan name are considered "brothers" and when traveling, hide-workers will stay 
with degala families sharing their same clan name. When one considers moving to 



206 
another village, with rare exception, one can only move to a village where there are 

either no other hide-workers or hide-workers that have the same clan as ones' own. 

The most common clans among the Gamo hide-workers in the deres in which I 
worked extensively (Borada, Kogo, Zada, Doko, Ochollo, and Dorze) are the 
Gezemala, Damota, Maagata, and Zutuma clans. Bola, Bolosa, Amara, and 
Goodaramala are also common clan names. A comparison of handle dimensions 
based on clan and divided by handle type indicates that there is a statistically 
significant difference in handle morphology between the different clans (Figures 6-4 
and 6-5, see Appendix Table C-24 and Table C-25). 

However, tutwna sockets belonging to different clans were not significantly 
different from one another, while zucano sockets were different (see Appendix Table 
C-26 and Table C-27). This may be because many tutuma-users tend to make their 
own handle rather than inherit it from their father. The tutuma assemblage from the 
clans of Amara (7 villages in 15 observations), Bola (12 villages in 19 observations), 
Gezemala (16 villages in 36 observations), and Zutuma (12 villages in 40 
observations) are each represented by many villages with a fairly equal distribution 
between each clan. In contrast, most clans (4 out of 6 comparisons) using zucano?, had 
sockets that were significantly different from one another. This is probably because 
many of the clans using the zucano handle are represented by a single village and 
lineage, who have passed down the handles from one generation to the next. For 
instance, my assemblage of zucano handles from the Damota (4 villages but with 1 
representing 50 percent), Gezemala (7 villages but with 1 representing 53 percent), 
and Maagata (3 villages but with one representing 9 1 percent) clans were each 



207 



dominated by information from a single village. Thus, differences in handles and 
sockets between zucano-using clans may be pointing to differences in handles based 
on lineage/village membership. The differences may be explained in the number of 
villages/lineages represented by each clan and the inheritance practices concerning 
zucano (inherited) versus tutuma (not inherited) type handles. 




■ 6 M 



th 



Cj Q cm c\) j , C ^ \> e 



a 



en, 



9th 



* ;.,*;> * ¥* 



^t 



lo 



Legend 

D Damota (n=10) Z Zutuma (n=10) G Gezemala (n=17) M Maagata (n=19) 

Figure 6-4: Graph demonstrating handles differences between zucano -using clans. 



208 




08 6 § 



&t e , , Q 1 ~; 2 ^ K> „ 



n 



en 



9th 



^t 



lo 



Legend 

B Bola (n=19) Z Zutuma (n=40) G Gezemala (n=36) A Amara (n=15) 

Figure 6-5: Graph demonstrating handle differences between tatama-using clans. 



Figure 6-6 illustrates that a comparison of unused scraper morphology in terms 
of clan membership clusters into two groups: 1) Zutuma and Bolosa and 2) Maagata, 
Damota, and Gezemala. The used-up scrapers also cluster, but not as tightly, into two 
groups: 1) Maagata and Zutuma and 2) Gezemala, Damota, and Bolosa (Figure 6-7). 



209 
The clustering of the unused scrapers is probably the result of handle type (Figure 6- 

6). For instance, the unused scrapers from the Zutuma and Bolosa clans 

predominately come from tutuma-using villages, while the unused scrapers of the 

Maagata, Damota, and Gezemala clans are from zucano-usmg villages. The clustering 

of the used-up scrapers cannot be explained by handle type (Figure 6-7). The Bolosa 

and Gezemala clan scrapers are primarily from the mota of Shongalay, which may 

explain their similarity. However, I do not know why the Damota scrapers are similar 

to the Gezemala and Bolosa scrapers. 

Although there is some clustering of clan scrapers in the graphic illustrations 
(Figures 6-6 and 6-7), the t-tests indicate unused and used-up scrapers are significantly 
different from one another based on clan membership (see Appendix Table C-28, 
Table C-29, Table C-30, and Table C-31). Clan differences were primarily expressed 
in breadth/length, thickness/length, and retouch length, but not concerning weight or 
distal edge angle. This suggests that there is continuity between overall scraper 
morphology and clan membership. 

However, the village make-up of the clans may be as important in deciphering 
scraper morphology as handle and haft morphology (see Appendix Table B-7 and 
Table B-8). Each clan I studied primarily consists of one lineage/village with a single 
handle type (e.g., Maagata from Amure Dembe Chileshe zucano; Zutuma from Patela 
Tsela tutuma; Bolosa from Eeyahoo Shongalay tutuma). There are two exceptions as 
the Damota and Gezemala clans consist primarily of two different handle types. 
Similarity in handle type or distribution probably explains why Damota and Gezemala 



210 



(an equal mixture of two handle types) and Zutuma and Bolosa scrapers (both 
tutumas) are similar in some instances. 




Legend 

Mostly zucano-users = G Gezemala (n=249) D Damota (n=72) M Maagata (n=244) 
Mostly tutuma users = B Bolosa (n=64) Z Zutuma (n=296) 

Figure 6-6: Graph comparing clan unused scrapers illustrating two general clusters 
associated with handle type. 



211 




o 27 « 

°-2 S K 



fi 



6 * « * i j ,s « * * j» 



^t 



lo 



Legend 

Mostly zucano-users = G Gezemala (n=352) D Damota (n=50) M Maagata (n=218) 
Mostly tutuma users = B Bolosa (n=142) Z Zutuma (n=239) 

Figure 6-7: Graph comparing clan used-up scrapers illustrating two general clusters 
NOT associated with handle type. 



Unfortunately, it was not possible to collect scrapers from one clan using the 
same handle type in two different villages representing different lineages because it 
simply does not exist. At most, if this did occur it represented a sole individual who 
moved to the area (usually Borada). Therefore, this individual would not actually 
represent a different village or social group but rather the one he came from. It is 
possible that clan membership is reflecting lineage/village membership, so below, I 
compared different lineage/villages. 



212 
Lineages and Villages: Handles and Scrapers 

The hide-workers socialize and work most closely with other hide-workers 
who live in their same village. Often villages are represented by a patrilineage, who 
have learned how to make handles and scrapers from one another. Thus, I would 
expect to see stronger similarities among village hide-workers' handles and scrapers, 
than between subregional, dere, moiety, and clan groups. 

In each of the villages of Mogesa, Amure, Eeyahoo, and Patela, the hide- 
workers belong to a single patrilineage (see locations Chapter 2, Figure 2-2). Gamo 
hide-workers have a strong sense of family on the village level. Fathers and brothers 
often help inexperienced hide-workers shape their tools and give them tips on scraping 
the hides, as well. When a hide-worker is having problems getting a sharpened edge 
on a particular piece, he will turn to another local hide-worker to help him. There is 
no competition to scrape the best hide, to produce the best scraper, or to obtain the 
best raw material. 

In each village, the hide-workers had a very difficult time selecting their own 
scraper out from others in their village during a sorting test. Ten of the thirty hide- 
workers offered to select their own scrapers out from others. The latter all believed 
that they could select their own scrapers because "their hands had made them," while 
the others were more skeptical. In a pile-sort collection sample size ranging from 20 
to 24 scrapers for each village, only three of the hide-workers (Amaylo in Eeyahoo, 
Buta in Mogesa, and Yeka in Mogesa) selected one of two scrapers in the collection, 
which they had actually made. Six of the other hide-workers did not accurately 
choose their own scrapers, however they did select scrapers made by others in their 



213 
village. Only one hide-worker chose scrapers from another village, the very young 

hide-worker, Mola, who works very infrequently and has only made scrapers for five 

years. Most hide-workers declined to try to select out their own scrapers from others 

in their village and those that tried mostly were not able to identify their own but 

chose others from their own village. This suggests that although they were not able to 

articulate the precise attributes, the overall morphology of the scrapers is discernable 

in terms of village membership. This would seem to indicate that there would be 

strong similarities in hide-working material culture within a village. 

The hide-workers in all four villages believed that they could identify their 
own village scrapers because of the raw material color. Each village prefers particular 
raw material colors, which are selected by the conchoidal nature of the locally 
available cherts. The hide-workers test the glass-like nature of the material by 
breathing on the stone. If the stone has a shine to the surface, it is considered a good 
working stone. Although the hide-workers in each of these villages use other colors of 
chert, they are considered inferior, and the color they prefer dominates their village 
assemblage (Figure 6-8). The village of Mogesa prefers green and black chert, 
Eeyahoo gray chert, Amure yellow-brown, red, and gray chert, and Patela yellow- 
brown, red, and green chert. A chi-square test determined that the differences in 
scraper colors are significant at the 0.05 level (see Appendix Table C-32). Obsidian 
is not a material that distinguishes village membership, as all four villages use it in 
equal amounts, about 6 to 10 percent of their assemblage. 

The village of Mogesa accurately chose (100 percent) all the scrapers made 
within their village (green and black colors), which predominate the scraper 



214 
assemblage that I collected from them. However, they also chose obsidian and gray 

scrapers from Eeyahoo, black and brown scrapers from Amure, and black and gray 

scrapers from Patela. These colors are also common in Mogesa. Amure hide-workers 

were also very accurate in choosing scrapers made in their village (88 percent). A 

majority selected yellow-brown, brown and red scrapers, which does dominate their 

scraper assemblage that I collected. They also chose one green scraper from Amure, 

red, obsidian, brown, and gray scrapers from Eeyahoo, and a red Patela scraper. The 

color of green is not common in Amure and it is curious that they chose this scraper. 

Although the scraper was hafted in a zucano, like their own scrapers. However, the 

other colors of red, brown, and gray are common to the village source of chert. The 

tutuma-users of Patela and Eeyahoo were less accurate. Patela hide-workers chose 

obsidian, green, red, and yellow scrapers resulting in 63 percent accuracy in selecting 

scrapers made in their own village. They also selected green and black scrapers from 

Mogesa, a red scraper from Eeyahoo, and red and yellow scrapers from Amure. The 

Patela scrapers, which I collected, represented the most diverse range of colors of all 

the village scrapers, which may have made it difficult for them to differentiate their 

own scrapers based on color. Eeyahoo had the poorest results, 14 percent, selecting a 

brown/white scraper as their own, as well as a brown scraper from Amure. It is 

curious that I mostly collected green, white, and yellow scrapers from Eeyahoo, but 

that the hide-worker did not choose these colors. As previously discussed in Chapter 

2, the hide-workers in this village are young and moved to the area. It is possible that 

the presence of older hide-workers, who have more experience working with the 

materials, were more sensitive to the color ranges present in their village source than 



215 



the Eeyahoo villagers who moved there and probably used different sources before 
they moved to Eeyahoo. 




Mogesa Amure Eeyahoo Patala 
(n=487) (n=450) (n=252) (n=494) 

Village 



■ Chert Purple 

□ Chert Pink 
Chert Grey 
Chert White 

□ Chert Green 

■ Chert Black 

□ Chert Brown 
m Chert Red 

H Chert Yellow-Brown 
Q Obsidian 



Figure 6-8: Graph illustrating the different colors of raw materials used by each 
lineage/village. 



Three-dimensional graphs of village handle types demonstrate the 
geographical relationship between zucano-us'mg villages and between tutuma-mmg 
villages (Figures 6-9 and 6-10). Statistical comparison in a t-test indicates that each 



216 



village is significantly different in terms of handle morphology (see Appendix Table 
C-33). 




Legend 

E Eeyahoo (n=5) T Tzabo (n=5) P Patela (n=18) 

Figure 6-9: Graph demonstrating the differences between handles of tutuma-using 
lineage/villages. 






217 




Bt 






»/i 



^n. 



9th 



**t 



^ 



# 



v ev 



io 



Legend 

M Mogesa (n=12) A Afilaketsa (n=5) a Amure (n=17) 

Figure 6-10: Graph demonstrating the handle differences between zwozno-using 
lineages/villages. 



However the socket breadth/height ratios are not significantly different 
between the tatama-using villages and most zucano-using villages (see Appendix 
Table C-34). Since each individual only owns one or two handles in tatama-using 
villages, and in zwcano-using villages, handles are often shared, each village had a 
small number of handles. In both cases, many of the sample sizes are too small to 
render valid statistical results. 



218 
A graphic illustration of the unused and used-up scrapers of Patela, Eeyahoo, 

Mogesa, and Amure suggests that they are significantly different from one another 
(Figure 6-11 and 6-12). T-tests confirm that the village unused scrapers are 
significantly different, with the exception of breadth/length ratio between Patela and 
Eeyahoo (see Appendix Table C-35 and Table C-36). Both of these villages use 
tutuma handles, which may account for the similarity in breadth/length ratios. 

The used-up scrapers are also significantly different based on village 
membership except for the breadth between Patela and Amure, length between 
Eeyahoo and Mogesa, and the proximal thickness between Eeyahoo and Amure (see 
Appendix Table C-37 and Table C-38). Distal thickness, thickness/length ratio, 
breadth/length ratio, and retouch length were predominately statistically different 
when comparing the used-up scrapers based on village membership. Both Eeyahoo 
and Mogesa are located in Shongalay mota. However, the hide-workers in these two 
villages are not related to one another. Eeyahoo consists of two brothers and another 
hide-worker who recently moved into the area and are completely unrelated to the 
Mogesa hide-workers. When I was collecting scrapers from these two villages, the 
rains had not come although it was the rainy season (July through September). This 
meant that chert resources were more scarce than usual, which might have led to 
increased curation and reduction of the tools to a similar size. The difference between 
the mean length of unused and used-up Eeyahoo scrapers is only 0.12 cm which is not 
much reduction, while the difference between the mean length of the unused and used- 
up Mogesa scrapers is 1.27 cm. However, it might still indicate stone conservation. 



219 




fit 



H<j th 3 * ? *' , % i- 6 ^> 



^ S c 



^t 



lo 



Legend 

P Patela (n=285) M Mogesa (n=209) E Eeyahoo (n=78) A Amure (n=239) 

Figure 6-11: Graph demonstrating the differences between unused scrapers between 
lineages/villages. 



When other attributes are compared between villages, we see both village 
individuality and pan-Gamo similarities. Raw materials that have a patina from long- 
term exposure to air or have cortex are not considered good. In all four villages, there 
was very little cortex remaining on any of the tools, seventy-two to eighty-three 
percent of the scrapers had no cortex and the remaining nine percent had less than 
twenty-five percent cortex coverage (see Appendix Figure D-14). 



220 




'*, 



^t h 






Legend 

P Patela (n=209) M Mogesa (n=283) E Eeyahoo (n=174) A Amure (n=21 1) 

Figure 6-12: Graph demonstrating the differences between used-up scrapers between 
lineages/villages. 



A comparison of planform (see Appendix Figure D-15 and Figure D-16), 
dorsal scar pattern (see Appendix Figure D-17), cross-section (see Appendix Figure 
D-18 and D-19), platform locations (see Appendix Figure D-20), and location of used 
edges (see Appendix Figure D-21) demonstrate differences emphasizing hafting in 
either tutwna or zucano handles rather than lineage/village membership. As discussed 
earlier, the zucano villages use only the distal edge for scraping which differentiates 



221 
them from the tutuma villages. Most of tutuma-using hide-workers use the distal edge 

and then the right edge for scraping. In Mogesa and Amure, the zucano-using 

villages, the typical unused scraper has radial dorsal scar pattern (70-80 percent) with 

ventral proximal end platform location (20 percent, with 75 percent unidentifiable). 

The unused and used-up scrapers are shaped mostly on either the distal edge (10 

percent) or on the distal and one or both of the laterals (50 percent) forming either a 

short quadrilateral (40 percent unused and 80 percent used-up) or long oval planforms 

(40-80 percent unused). At Patela and Eeyahoo, where the tutuma handle is used, the 

typical unused scraper has a parallel one-direction, irregular or opposed dorsal scar 

pattern with ventral proximal end platform location (20 percent, with 75 percent 

unidentifiable). The unused scrapers are primarily short quadrilateral in planform (80 

percent) and they tend to maintain this shape through use. Although there are 

similarities between villages based on handle type and concerning some characteristics 

such as planform, dorsal scar pattern, cross-section, and retouch location, each 

lineage/village expresses significant differences in their scraper morphology (both 

unused and used-up), when graphically plotted and statistically compared against 

scrapers from other villages. 

Discussion 

Gamo hide-workers do not consciously produce scrapers that are different 
from other moieties, clans, and lineages/villages. However, because they learn scraper 
procurement, production, and use from their fathers, there is an unconscious similarity 
in scraper form associated with patrilineal social groups. 






222 
Archaeological studies have considered chert color, luster, and inclusions as 

evidence for source locations and forager mobility strategies (Butler and May 1984; 

Luedtke 1976), but they rarely consider that color variety may be linked to social 

group choice and preference (Sackett 1985:280). The Gamo are able to select their 

own village scrapers based on raw material color. They are protective of their local 

resource, which they inherit through their patrilineal descent system. Village 

preference for particular colors of chert based on their conchoidal fracturing does lead 

to lineage/village distinction of scrapers based on chert color. Gould's (1968) study of 

the Ngatatjara of western Australia also indicated that toolmakers place a high value 

on quarries, which they associate with their "dreamtime totem" representing their 

"patrilineal relationship to the site." 

Furthermore, my analyses indicate that in terms of kinship relationships, 

scrapers are morphologically distinct on the village level where they represent a single 

lineage group. Specifically, village residence is represented in terms of breadth, 

length, thickness, and sometimes planform, cross-section, and dorsal scar patterns of 

stone scrapers. In short, it is an understanding of the general morphology of the 

scraper between villages, which gives meaning to variation in social terms. My study 

rearticulates Sackett's (1985, 1989) theory of isochrestic style, advocating that it is a 

sum of the different components of the overall morphology of an object rather than 

individual attributes that identify style. Rick (1980:314-316, 1996) also used a 

combination of stone tool metric ratios (length, breadth, width), cross-section, and 

edge treatment to correlate projectile point variation with coresidential units or bands. 

Close's (1977) concept of style is similar, as she emphasizes a microtradition learned 



223 
unconsciously in a social context transmitted from one generation to the next. 

However, she recognizes style through eliminating functional and technological 

vectors, and considers the nonfunctional attributes of style to include retouch variants, 

the types of retouch for backing, and the location of the working edge and platform 

location. My research found no consistency in platform location and in relationship to 

the working edge, but did find retouch length to be an expression of social group 

differences in terms of moieties, clans, and lineages. 

Analyses of lithic materials has the potential for revealing kinship relationships 

such as moiety, clan, and lineage when contrasted between village locations that 

belong to the same cultural group. Style is expressed unconsciously in terms of the 

overall morphology of the stone scrapers and does reflect patrilineal descent and 

residence. 






CHAPTER 7 
DOMESTIC GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 



History and ethnography repeatedly tell us that the concept of identity is 
flexible, changing with and melding to the specific contextual situation of individuals 
(Jones and Graves-Brown 1996:5-7). Exploring similarities and differences in artifact 
style within tightly understood contexts, such as intrasite and household patterns may 
be our best avenue for understanding local identities. Few archaeologists have 
examined stone tools in terms of individual differences or the amount of knapping 
experience (Bonnichsen 1977; Gunn 1975; Toth 1985). These studies focus on flake 
scar orientation and type, to distinguish the scrapers belonging to different individuals 
and handedness. The Gamo intravillage identities are expressed in their stone tool 
morphology and spatial patterning in terms of domestic groups, age, and 
individualism, although handedness traits were not identifiable. 

Domestic Groups 
Household Spatial Arrangements 

The location of hide-worker households within the village delineates their 
social position and learning groups because the craft is usually learned from fathers. 
As previously stated, artisan households are usually located on steep slopes and in 
areas of poor soils and irrigation. In addition, in the past, the artisans buried their 

224 



225 
deceased within their household garden and the farmers had a separate burial ground. 

Today the artisans also have a burial ground but it is separate from the farmers, 

because of their association with pollution and infertility. Artisans are still refused 

burial in church cemeteries. 

Since postmarital residence is virilocal, sons live near their father creating 
patrilineally related domestic groups. However, they live in a separate structure from 
their father's, although it is within the same compound and within 2-3 meters. Hence, 
households cluster in terms of learning groups. Storage, use, and discard patterns are 
directly associated with residence patterns, but also vary in terms of handle type, as 
discussed in Chapter 5. In the zucano-using villages of Mogesa and Amure, each 
hide-worker stores his unused scrapers in a wooden bowl or in a cloth sack within his 
household. The handles also are kept within the household. Hides are scraped inside 
the household and so resharpening flakes fall directly on the household floor and are 
left there (though a small attempt is made to sweep them to the edges of the house). 
Each of the household clusters (consisting of a father and his son) has a single discard 
location specifically for the used-up scrapers. The discard piles are usually located in 
thorn bushes near footpaths. In addition, used-up scrapers may be found near the 
hearth, scraping frame, and household threshold or on footpaths near the individual's 
house. 

In Mogesa, there are three learning groups and three clusters of households: 1) 
Buta, Tesfy, and Goa; 2) Mokano, Mola, Yonja; and 3) Yeka (Figure 7-1). Yonja 
learned scraping from Mokano (his uncle) rather than from his father but lives closer 



• ■ Am related households 
foot paths 



MANA * 



to highlands 



226 



lithic 
trash pit 



Yeka 



Yonja 




20 40 
i i i i i 

meters 



Figure 7-1: Map of Mogesa village illustrating the clustering of households by father- 
sons. 









227 
to Yeka. Therefore, Yeka and Yonja share a discard location. In Amure, there also 

are three learning groups and household clusters: 1) Hanicha, Osha, and Bedala; 2) 

Chamo of and Hagay; and 3) Gamana, Galche, and Mardos (Figure 7-2). However in 

terms discard there is a slightly different arrangement as Hanicha, Osha, Bedala, 

Chamo, and Hagay share one discard pile and Galche and Mardos share a discard 

location, but Gamana has his own discard location. 

In tutuma-using villages, there is a different pattern of household storage, use, 
and discard location. In the villages of Patela and Eeyahoo, each hide-worker stores 
his blocks of raw chert materials in his enset garden near his household. The unused 
scrapers and debitage are kept in a ceramic bowl also kept in the enset garden. The 
handles are often wedged in the stalks of the enset plants. Hides are scraped outside 
the household and so resharpening flakes fall directly on the ground and are left there 
with no attempt to move them. Used-up scrapers may be found near the scraping 
frame or footpaths, but are not found in the households near the hearth. There are four 
learning groups and household clusters in Patela: 1) Gaga, Darsa, and Garbo; 2) Tina 
and Tinko; 3) Tsoma and Uma; and 4) Unkay, Arka, Abata, and Basa (Figure 7-3). 
Although Darsa is a brother to Garbo and Gaga, he lives separately from them. 
Patela's used-up scrapers and debitage are scattered into the enset garden near the 
household. 

In Eeyahoo, each hide-worker has his own household and discard location. 
They each live equidistant from one another (Figure 7-4). Since they moved into the 
village, there is no residence pattern based on kin relationships. The Eeyahoo 



228 



OS = Osha 
GB = Gabre 
G = Galche 
M = Mardos 
HG = Hagay 
C = Chamo 
B = Bedala 
H = Hanicha 



0Z\O> ■ related households 
O = other delaga households 
O = workshop 
s^foot paths 

elevation change 




river 
valley 



waterfaN/ W T «,<f & ~ ~ - -£ . 

CtjCtisSfflrTftasji 



lithic «# 
trash pit ^g 



aVMgggSjfey 



Figure 7-2: Map of Amure village illustrating the clustering of households by learning 
groups. 









229 




© 


o, 

CM 








k 










\ 
i 
i 
i 
i 
/ 


o- 


ID 

E 






i 

1 (0 


s 






®*-— '.I 


J 














'X / — y 




to 

a 

3 




" / 
> / 

1 y/ 




2 

C 




/"^ \ 




I 




/ \ 




05 




/ \ 


, 


>> 




/ V 


f 


XJ 




\ 


- 


<S1 




\ 


\. 


2 




\ 


' 


"o 






* » "" ' 


x: 




' >. 


o> 


u 






Li'>'" ° IJ o • '•:>■ 


SB 

3 
O 




- (< m 1 1 


\. o ;■;,-/ 


>4-l 
O 

60 

C 






vV \I;SJ :<-:-y.-:-:'-:-:-:f ^v f . *+ W 


*C 






' >vS. / /^S.. *■ v / * 


49 




(0 \ •» 

1 V 

3 X 




_3 




S \ 


C, o\a \//--v- 






seholds 
la and ma 




60 

C 

i 

H 
O 




ii O U> 




_3 




£ -o * 

— m .2 9 

P lit 

1 ID I 

o ro p o 5 
CL >Q. £; (0 v^y O 


\i\0 \ V* 


11 

60 




1 C fH^v_ 1 1 Vv:> \ 

OQ. 1 1 \ \ B.5 

i \ '■ (*) Ilk 


> 

43 

c3 




• Y » ' $ o 

lijlfiftliii 


\^»%\ \ 


(4-1 
O 




V <* an \ 

\ \ : -< vJ 






OI-l-CD<<z>OC3<3z>l- 




r^ 




■1 II II II II II II II II II II II 
*~*- <<r>C3C3C3 H 


\ ( i: W ..i 


B 

C 
3 
60 






\ ^v: : '': : : : : : :'" ' 








\ ^^:::: 


E 







230 




' mala* N 

' burial , 

( forest / 

v hill top / 



i (•) hideworker house 

• mala households 
footpaths —. ravine 



Figure 7-4: Map of Eeyahoo village illustrating the absence of household clustering. 



231 
Shongalay hide-workers are estranged from their fathers, who live in another village 

and dere. They all use a tutuma like their fathers, rather than the zucano handle used 

by the Mogesa Shongalay hide-workers. Yet, two of the hide-workers (not the two 

brothers) have picked up other cultural traits belonging to zucano-us'mg hide-workers. 

For instance, two of the Eeyahoo hide-workers scrape hides inside their household, 

rather than outside. In addition, they have specific discard piles, rather than throwing 

their scrapers into their garden. This suggests that there may be local social pressures 

to conform to local hide- working methods when hide-workers move into a new area. 

Since the households in each village tend to cluster because of virilocal 

residence rules, the scrapers that belong to father-son learning groups also cluster 

within the village setting. Furthermore fathers and sons share discard piles, which 

means that discarded used-up scrapers are also spatially distinct based on domestic 

group membership. 

Handles and Sockets 

In villages that use the zucano handle, the handles are inherited from elder 
hide-workers and if the elder is still living, he shares his handles with his sons. In 
contrast, the individuals in tutuma-us'mg villages make their own handles. The 
number of handles and sockets from each village is too low, however, to determine if 
there are statistically significant differences. 

Mogesa, a zucano-us'mg village, is the only village in which hide-workers 
shared handles (Figures 7-5 and 7-6). At Mogesa, there are three sets of handles 
shared by the three elders (see Appendix Figures A-l and A-2 for kinship 



232 




Legend 

B Buta (3) M Mokano (3) Y Yeka (3) 



So 



g^ 



Figure 7-5: Graph illustrating the differences between the handles of the three Mogesa 
domestic groups. 



1 

3 2 

3 o 

M 



1.59 

1 1 to - - ■ 












^rri^ 


























Buta (n=3) 



Mokano (n=3) 
Individuals 



Yeka (n=3) 



Figure 7-6: Graph illustrating the differences between the sockets of the three Mogesa 
domestic groups. 



233 
relationships) with their sons and nephews. Although Buta's handles and sockets are 

different morphologically from those of Mokano and Yeka, the latter's handles and 

sockets are very similar to each other in breadth/length/thickness (Figures 7-5 and 7- 

6). 

At Amure, also a zucano-using village, the comparison of the handle 

morphology (Figure 7-7) demonstrates a clustering into three domestic groups: 1) 

Gabre, Gamana, and Galche; 2) Hagay and Chamo; and 3) Hanicha, Osha, and Bedala. 




13 S 


1 


13 


f! 




4J 


12 5 


bi 


12 


i 




\ 


Us 


10 

4 




(h 


u 


.5 


lo.s 







£ 


1 


fi 



l/ l 






Legend 

Domestic group 1: G Galche (n=2) A Gamana (n=2) R Gabre (n=l) 

Domestic group 2: C Chamo (n=2) Y Hagay (n=l) 

Domestic group 3: H Hanicha (n=4) O Osha (n=2) B Bedala (n=2) 

Figure 7-7: Graph illustrating the differences between handles of the three Amure 
domestic groups. 



234 

These three clusters represent descent from three different grandfathers (see Appendix 
Figure A-3, A-4, and A-5 for kinship relationships). Hanicha gave two of his handles 
to Osha his son and Gabre gave his handles to his son, Gamana. All the other hide- 
workers received their handles from their fathers, who are now deceased. The Amure 
socket sizes (Figure 7-8) also cluster in terms of domestic groups, except for Galche 
and Bedala, which are similar to one another but not their domestic cluster. 



1.6 
1.4 
1.2 

s 

If 8 
~b 

£ 0.6 
y 
o 
w 

0.4 

0.2 





1.4 1.4 


1.5 




1.5 












1.2 


1.3 




1.3 


1.2 


■ 







■ — 























Gabre Gamana Galche Chamo Hagay 
(n=2) (n=4) ( n =6) ( n =4) (n=2) 

Individuals 



Bedala Hanicha Osha 
(n=4) (n=8) (n=4) 



Figure 7-8: Graph illustrating the clustering of socket sizes by domestic group in 
Amure (Group 1: 1.4, Group 2: 1.3, and Group 3: 1.5). 



235 
At the tutuma-us'mg village of Patela, a comparison of the individual handles 

indicates four clusters which can be associated with domestic groupings: 1) Darsa, 

Garbo, and Gaga; 2) Tinko and Tina; 3) Arka, Abata, Unkay, and Basa; and 4) 

Garcho, Uma, and Tsoma (Figure 7-9, see Appendix Figures A-6, A-7, A-8, and A-9). 




°-0 7 § 



^3 



th 



a 



«n 



*th 



*0 






& 



Legend 

Domestic group 1: g Gaga (n=2) d Darsa (n=l) b Garbo (n=2) 

Domestic group 2: H Garcho (n=l) T Tsoma (n=l) U Uma (n=l) 

Domestic group 3: n Tina (n=2) o Tinko (n=2) 

Domestic group 4: K Unkay (n=2) A Arka (n=2) S Basa (n=l) 



Figure 7-9: Graph illustrating the clustering of handles by domestic group in Patela. 



(Figures 7-1 1 and 7-12) (see Appendix Figures A- 10 and A-l 1 for kinship 
relationships). 



237 




Legend 

M Amaylo (n=l) W Awesto (n=2) A Arba (n=2) 

Figure 7-11: Graph illustrating that handle morphologies are not similar among 
individuals living in Eeyahoo. 



Handles, especially zucano handles, are generally passed down from one 
generation to the next, and therefore individual handles cluster in terms of patrilineal 
descent lines. The sockets on individual's handles also tend to reflect descent groups 
and learning groups for zucano hafts. However, the flexible nature of tutuma hafts 
allows for more variation, perhaps on the individual level of particular scraper choice. 



238 



3 

9 

4» 

n 

u 
o 
w 



4 


^ 

3 3 


3 
9 S 










2.9 


















2 
i < 






























i .j 
i . 
















i 
n s 
















U.J 



















Amalyo(n=l) Awesto (n=2) 
Individuals 



Arba (n=2) 



Figure 7-12: Graph illustrating that socket size does not cluster in Eeyahoo. 



Unused Scrapers 



Since sons use their father's handles and learn to make scrapers from them, it is 
reasonable to expect that unused scrapers will reflect this social association. A 
comparison of the mean value for length, breadth/length ratio, and thickness/length 
ratio of unused scrapers for each individual in all four villages indicates clustering in 
terms of domestic-learning groups (Figures 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, and 7-16). 

The unused scrapers produced by the Mogesa hide-workers cluster into three 
domestic groups (Figure 7-13). Mokano, Yonja, and Mola's unused-scrapers cluster 
together, while the unused scrapers of Yeka, Buta, and Goa also cluster together. 
Tesfy's unused scrapers do not cluster with any of the others. 

In Amure, there is also clustering based on domestic groups in terms of unused 
scrapers (Figure 7-14). For the unused scrapers, there is one cluster by Hanicha, Osha, 
and Bedala and a second cluster of Gamana, Gabre, and Galche. Hagay and Chamo 



236 



Most of the Patela hide-workers made their own handles from local resources rather 
than inheriting them. Although the handles cluster by domestic group membership, 
the tutuma sockets of Patela do not reflect domestic groups (Figure 7-10). Instead, 
they represent individuality. 




,_ 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 




CM 






II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


c 


c 


1= 


C 


c 


c 


C 


c 


c 


1= 


c 



CO 



OO 



o 



0D 
CD 



00 
00 

CD 



o 



00 



OO 3» 



OO 
0^ 
OO 

CD 



o 

o 

i_ 

OO 
CD 



OO 

E 



0D 

E 

o 

0^ 



Individuals 



Figure 7-10: Graph illustrating that sockets size does not cluster by domestic group in 
Patela. 



At Eeyahoo, there is no clustering of handle morphology or sockets among the 
resident hide-workers. Eeyahoo is a tutuma-using village, and the hide-workers each 
made their own handle and do not live near their fathers. Consequently, the Eeyahoo 
handles express no clustering of handles and sockets, not even between brothers 



239 
though do not cluster together, but since Hagay is almost blind, his scraper results may 

not accurately represent his domestic group membership. 

In Patela, the unused scrapers also reflect the four domestic groups with the 
exception of Arka and Unkay's scrapers (Figure 7-15). Unkay's and Arka's scrapers 
were almost all obsidian compared to others in their lineage, which may account for 
their longer length. Obsidian scrapers made by the Gamo tend be longer in their 
unused form compared to chert scrapers, but are reduced more during use and so used- 
up obsidian and chert scrapers have a similar length (see Chapter 4). 

At Eeyahoo, the unused scrapers of the two brothers Amaylo and Awesto 
cluster together, separate from Arba's (Figure 7-16). However, the brother's scrapers 
do not seem to be similar to their father's. It should be noted, however, that he no 
longer scrapes hides and lives in another village. However, he did produce unused 
scrapers for me on request, though his strength was clearly waning and he was not 
able to make the 30 that I requested. The brothers are estranged from their father and 
have no incentive to maintain a similarity in scraper form. 

The mean values of individual unused scrapers, within each village, express 
clustering in terms of domestic groups (see Appendix A for kinship relations), when 
plotted on a three-dimensional graph (Figures 7-13, 7-14, 7-15, and 7-16). T-tests 
confirm that there are significant differences between the domestic-learning groups, 
discussed above, in Mogesa (see Appendix Table C-39 and Table C-40), Amure (see 
Appendix Table C-41 and Table C-42), and Patela (see Appendix Table C-43 and 
Table C-44). T-tests were not used to compare Eeyahoo learning groups, since they 
do not exist in this particular village. 






240 




«<W ft. 9, ■ 



w 



Legend 

Domestic group 1: T Tesfy (n=30) B Buta (n=32) G Goa (n=28) 
Domestic group 2: M Mokano (n=30) O Mola (n=30) Y Yonja (n=28) 
Domestic group 3: K Yeka (n=31) 



Figure 7-13: Graph illustrating the clustering of Mogesa unused scrapers by domestic 
group. 



241 




't 6a Q <a «a K 5 * . 



a 

i 1 
n 8 



Legend 

Domestic group 1: H Hanicha (n=30) O Osha (n=30) B Bedala (n=39) 

Domestic group 3: C Chamo (n=29) Y Hagay (n=30) 

Domestic group 2: G Galche (n=21) A Gamana (n=29) M Mardos (n=31) 

Figure 7-14: Graph illustrating the clustering of Amure unused scrapers by domestic 
group. 



242 




W ^ ■ <" ft „\P 



*0 



s> 



w> 



Legend 

Domestic group: g Gaga (n=22) d Darsa (n=26) b Garbo (n=21) 

Domestic group: H Garcho (n=30) T Tsoma (n=22) U Uma (n=27) 

Domestic group: n Tina (n=22) o Tinko (n= 19) 

Domestic group: K Unkay (n=24) R Arka (n=25) S Basa (n=24) A Abata (n=23) 



Figure 7-15: Graph illustrating the clustering of Patela unused scrapers by domestic 
group. 



243 




^ * * * 

*0 



^ 



Legend 

A Arba (n=23) M Amaylo (n=27) W Awesto (n=28) K Anko (n=19) 

Figure 7-16: Graph illustrating clustering of brother's unused scrapers in Eeyahoo. 



Distal edge angles of unused scrapers also cluster in learning groups (Figures 
7-17, 7-18, 7-19, and 7-20). This is to be expected as fathers or uncles teach their sons 
to produce a certain working edge to scrape the hides, a working edge they themselves 
have been successful with. The hide-worker learns through instruction and experience 
as to which working edge is too sharp or is too dull. But the final morphology of an 
edge and how long it is used before it breaks or is dull may have to do more with the 



244 
experience and age of the hide-worker (see age below), the type of raw material used 

(chert verse obsidian), and the amount of use a particular edge is exposed to may be 

related to the type and thickness of the hide (see Chapter 4). 



90 
80 

70 
60 
50 

a 40 

« 
W 30 

20 

10 





I 







iy 


74 


72 




Cf\ 


63 






62 






58 




■54 


-53 


■52 


■ 51 




■47 


■47 


■ 48 


46 






41 








t>2 


34 


35 






22 


18 


1 1 1 1 1 i 



Buta Tesfy Goa Mokano Mola Yonja Yeka 
(n=32) (n=30) (n=28) (n=30) (n=30) (n=28) (n=31) 

Individual 



Figure 7-17: Graph illustrating individual Mogesa unused distal edge angles and 
clustering mean by domestic group (Group 1: 47-48 and Group 2: 51-54). 



In Mogesa, there are two clusters of edge angles: 1) a mean range edge angle 
of 47-48 degrees for Buta, Goa, and Tesfy, and 2) a mean range edge angle of 51-54 
degrees for Mokano, Mola, Yonja, and Yeka (Figure 7-17). In Amure, the unused 
scraper mean distal edge angles (Figure 7-18) also reflects intravillage kinship 
relations: 1) Hanicha, Osha and Bedala at 52-53 degrees; 2) Hagay and Chamo at 55 
degrees; while 3) Galche, Gamana, and Mardos range from 54 to 56 degrees. The 



245 
mean distal unused edge angles for Patela seem to cluster by domestic group as well: 

1) Garcho, Uma, and Tsoma at 45-47 degrees; 2) Tinko and Tina at 48 degrees; 3) 

Arka, Abata, Unkay, and Basa at 47 to 50; and 4) Gaga, Darsa, and Garbo from 50-53 

degrees (Figure 7-19). Finally, in Eeyahoo the unused distal edge angles express no 

clustering (Figure 7-20). However, the differences between unused distal edge angles 

of learning groups is not significant in t-test, because there is great variability in each 

assemblage (see Appendix Tables C-40, C-42, and C-44). 



! 



90 
80 
70 
60 
50 



&40 

W 30 

20 



10 






81 




72 




75 


62 


64 


67 


67 




67 








-53 


■12 


■ ^n 


• 52 


■54 


■56 


■55 


■55 






■ JU 




43 




An 


' jy 


34 


->y 


35 




28 




1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



is 



So 3^ 3^ 

■S CO u cm .2 CO 

°6 ofi mS 



o 



CO 

cm 
& 



CM S)CM 

I Si 



in 

CM 



O 



Individual 



Figure 7-18: Graph comparing Amure unused distal edge angles (Group 1: 52-53, 
Group 2: 55, and Group 3: 54-56). 



246 



80 

70 

60 

| 50 

< 40 

4) 

# 30 

W 

20 

10 









74 






65 


62 


64 


62 






fio 


63 


■51 


■53 








58 


57 


DU 


■ 51 


56 


58 


3'» 






42 


■ 49 


■48 


*48 


-48 


■46 


■48 




-45 


■46 


■4" 






33 


32 


33 




35 




35 


35 








26 










29 




26 


25 




i.\ 1 


1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 



1 



o 



CO 
CM 

Hi 



O 
CM 

I 



CO 

■I— 1 

& 



o 

I 






I 

i 









Individual 



to 

CM 

I 



ON 
1 



co 

CM 

I 



o 

8 



Figure 7-19: Graph comparing Patela unused distal edge angles (Group 1: 45-47, 
Group 2: 48, Group 3: 47-50; and Group 4: 50-53). 



80 

75 

70 

S 65 

Is 

m 50 

W 45 

40 

35 

30 







in 


/j 
























■59 




■53 


■52 


















41 











33 

1 


-31 



Arba (n=23) Amaylo (n=27) Awesto (n=28) 
Individual 



Figure 7-20: Graph comparing Eeyahoo unused distal edge angles. 



247 
The unused scrapers of individuals in each of the four villages tend to cluster 

in terms of domestic-learning groups both in overall morphology and in distal edge 

angle. Learning groups in each of the four villages include fathers, sons, and brothers 

who live in households located closely together. Unused scrapers are either stored 

within the household or directly outside the household of the owner. Since households 

cluster in domestic groupings, the spatial location of learning-group (father-son) 

unused scrapers also cluster. 

Used-up Scrapers 

The learning groups and individuality become harder to discern, when 
comparing the attributes of used-up scrapers. The used-up scrapers in the zucano- 
using villages of Mogesa and Amure tend to cluster in terms of domestic groups, as 
did the tutuma-using Eeyahoo hide-workers. In contrast, the tutuma-hafted scrapers in 
the village of Patela express more of a random pattern. 

In Mogesa, the used-up scrapers (Figure 7-21) cluster in terms of the three 
learning groups: 1) Tesfy, Goa, and Buta; 2) Yonja and Mola, and 3) Yeka. Mokano, 
however, does not cluster with his son or nephew, whom he taught but rather with 
Buta. Concerning the used-up scrapers (Figure 7-22) there are also two clusters 
expressed in the Amure assembly: 1) Hagay and Chamo, and 2) Hanicha, Osha, 
Bedala. Although again there is an anomaly, as Gamana, Mardos, and Galche do not 
cluster with one another. The Eeyahoo used-up scrapers cluster in terms of learning 
groups, as the two brothers' scrapers are similar in morphology (Figure 7-33). 






248 




*Vh b Q m *< * p 



^ 



Legend 

Domestic group 1: T Tesfy (n=50) B Buta (n=70) G Goa (n=26) 
Domestic group 2: M Mokano (n=22) O Mola (n=21) Y Yonja (n=21) 
Domestic group 3: K Yeka (n=68) 

Figure 7-21 : Graph illustrating the clustering of Mogesa used-up scrapers by domestic 
group. 



In contrast, the used-up Patela scrapers exhibit a random pattern with no 
clustering of learning units (Figure 7-23). There may be more diversity in the Patela 
assemblage due to individual decisions concerning whether to use lateral edges for 
scraping. The use of the lateral edge would reduce the scraper width and change its 



249 



morphology. Yet, the Eeyahoo tutuma-usmg hide-workers' used-up scrapers do 
indicate clustering between the brothers (Figure 7-24). The differences between the 
Eeyahoo and Patela assemblages may be the result of the Patela hide-workers (69 
percent) more frequently turn the scrapers and use their laterals for subsequent 
scraping, than do the Eeyahoo (36 percent) hide-workers (Figure 7-25). 







T&fi 



Legend 

Domestic group 1: H Hanicha (n=44) O Osha (n=28) B Bedala (n=30) 

Domestic group 3: C Chamo (n=19) Y Hagay (n=14) 

Domestic group 2: G Galche (n=33) A Gamana (n=18) M Mardos (n=25) 

Figure 7-22: Graph illustrating the clustering of Amure used-up scrapers by domestic 
group. 



250 




t\j ^> ; Q 



*V f K * i S *> 



n 



5hr. °° 

^6 



8 " ^ 



26 g 
°-2 4 I 



Legend 

Domestic group: g Gaga (n=13) d Darsa (n=24) b Garbo (n=24) 

Domestic group: T Tsoma (n=14) U Uma (n=12) (there are no Garcho used-up 

scrapers) 

Domestic group: N Tina (n=25) Tinko (n=17) 

Domestic group: K Unkay (n=28) R Arka (n=25) S Basa (n=7) A Abata (n=16) 

Figure 7-23: Graph illustrating that Patela used-up scrapers do not cluster by domestic 
group. 



T-tests comparing the used-up scrapers of learning groups in each village 
indicate that they are significantly different from one another in Mogesa (see 
Appendix Tables C-45 and C-46), Amure (see Appendix Table C-47 and Table C-48), 



251 
and Patela (see Appendix Table C-49 and Table C-50). However, retouch length and 

distal edge angle are not significantly different when compared between the each of 

the domestic-learning groups. 




^t h 



to • *■» . c* 



\f 



sfB 



&> 



Legend 

A Arba n=(50) M Amaylo (n=57) W Awesto (n=67) K Anko (n=l 1) 

Figure 7-24: Graph illustrating that Eeyahoo used-up scrapers do not cluster by 
domestic group. 



252 



100% 
90% 
80% 



W 

K 

w 
a. 



70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 



I — 



Mogesa Amure Eeyahoo Patala 
(n=278) (n=211) (n=174) (n=205) 

Village 



■ Dorsal & Ventral 
Distal 

□ Dorsal Distal & 
Ventral Proximal 

m Distal, Proximal & 
Right Lateral 

□ Distal, Proximal & 
Left Lateral 

a All Sides Used 

■ Distal &Laterals 

■ Distal & Right 
DDistal&Left 

a Distal & Proximal 
o Distal 



Figure 7-25: Graph illustrating that more edges of a scraper are used in Patela for 
scraping than in other villages, including Eeyahoo. 



Domestic groups are expressed in stone tool morphology. Fathers teach their 
sons how to produce and use scrapers, and therefore, there are morphological 
similarities between their scrapers. Households that learn together also share 
residence and so scrapers that are similar morphologically in a village also spatially 
cluster within the village. 



253 
Individualism and Ideal Types 

Individuals 

Since sons learn hide scraping from their fathers, fathers and older brothers 
often help younger individuals shape and resharpen scrapers, and because they were 
unable to select their own scrapers in a pile sorting test, it was expected that there 
would be very little individual variation. Furthermore, in zucano-us'mg, villages where 
handles are shared between learning group members, I would expect even less 
variation than between individuals in tutuma-using villages, who make and use their 
own handles. 

However, t-tests comparing the morphological measurements of unused 
scrapers expose that many of the attributes between individuals are significantly 
different in Mogesa (see Appendix Tables C-5 1 and Table C-52), Amure (see 
Appendix Table C-53 and Table C-54), Eeyahoo (see Appendix Table C-55 and Table 
C-56), and Patela (see Appendix Table C-57 and Table C-58). Yet, as previously 
discussed in Chapter 5, the hide-workers were unable to try to select their own 
scrapers in a sorting test. This suggests that the individual differences are 
unconscious. 

Importantly, there is not any consistency concerning which variables identify 
individuals. Most individual differences (in a total of 121 tests for each attribute) 
occur in the comparison of length (52 percent), breadth (37 percent), proximal 
thickness (53 percent), and breadth/length thickness (31 percent). These attributes 
may be more constrained by the socket, especially when individuals share a handle, 



254 
than attributes such as distal thickness and retouch length. Furthermore, most of the 

differences between individual scraper measurements are less than one millimeter and 

this would be very difficult, if not impossible, to see visually. 

In addition, t-tests of individuals' used-up scrapers in each village comparing 

their mean morphological measurements indicate that many of the attributes between 

individuals are significantly different in Mogesa (see Appendix Tables C-59 and C- 

60), Amure (see Appendix Tables C-61 and C-62), Eeyahoo (see Appendix Tables C- 

63 and C-64), and Patela (see Appendix Tables C-65 and C-66). For the used-up 

scrapers, the insignificant to significant ratio is 2.5:5.2 for all 770 of the individual t- 

tests, indicating that there were twice as many significant differences as insignificant 

differences. However, similar to the unused scraper differences between individuals, 

there are not consistent attributes which identify individuals and the used-up scraper 

differences are usually less than 1 mm in size. This would make it difficult to believe 

that these differences express conscious/deliberate efforts by individuals to make their 

scrapers different from others. Most likely unused and used-up scrapers express 

individual differences because as human beings we are incapable of producing exact 

replicas; there will always be some degree of internal variability. 

Ideal Types 

Each of the villages has a hide-worker who they believe is the best knapper. In 
Mogesa it is Tesfy, in Patela it is Tina, and in Amure it is Bedala. Tesfy has been 
knapping for 8 years, Tina for 12, and Bedala for 5 years. The hide-workers state that 
these individuals are the best at achieving a good working edge. 



255 
The mean measurements for Tina and Bedala's unused scrapers are closest to 

representing their village means in all three dimensions (length, width, and thickness), 

however Tesfy's scrapers are significantly longer than those of his village mean 

(Table 7-1). While Tina and Bedala's scrapers may be seen to represent the ideal type, 

Tesfy's cannot, unless the ideal type is not being represented by the village mean. 

Tesfy does have the thinnest distal edge mean in his village at 0.36 cm, Tina's scrapers 

have the exact same distal edge thickness (but it does not represent the thinnest in the 

village), and Bedala is close at 0.37 cm. In terms of edge angles, the three selected as 

the best knappers all have unused distal edge angles that represent the village mean, 

which suggests an ideal distal working edge type for each village. Tesfy also 

maintains a working edge up to a mean distal working edge angle of 71°, Tina also to 

71°, and Bedala to 65°. Tesfy and Tina's distal used-up edge angles are the highest 

means in their particular village. Bedala who is less experience only has a mean of 

65°, while two other hide-workers in his village have a higher edge angle mean at 75° 

(Mardos and Chamo), but their overall scraper morphology and unused distal edge 

angle do not fall closely to the village mean. 



Table 7- 1 : Unused scraper comparison between the village mean measurements and the 
village's best knapper's mean measurements. 





Mean 
Length 


Mean B/L 
Ratio 


Mean T/L 
Ratio 


Mean Distal Edge 
Angle 


Patela village 
Tina 


2.7 
2.7 


0.85 
0.87 


0.12 
0.13 


48 
48 


A mure village 
Bedala 


3.7 
3.7 


0.67 
0.69 


0.10 
0.10 


53 
53 


Mogesa village 
Tesfy 


4.2 
4.6 


0.62 
0.60 


0.09 
0.07 


50 
49 



256 
A hide-worker is singled out in each village as the best knapper and there was 

no hesitancy in selection, even though it was an etically derived question. However, it 

was bolstered through observations, as I often witnessed before I asked the question, 

that these individuals (Tina, Bedala, and Tesfy) were turned to when a hide-worker 

had trouble getting a good working edge on a particular scraper. In conclusion, the 

scrapers of these three hide-workers come closest to reflecting the mean for the village 

in terms of length, breadth/length ratio, and thickness/length ratio, indicating that they 

are perhaps achieving and respected for creating the ideal type in their respective 

village. 






Experience and Age 






The only indication of experience and age that I saw reflected in the Gamo 
scrapers was connected with spurs and breaks. The creation of what archaeologists 
have termed graver spurs or on the distal corners of scrapers is created during 
resharpening (see Chapter 2 Figure 2-4). The hide-workers informed me that they are 
purely accidental and have no secondary function, nor do they help in the hide- 
working processes. Instead, the hide-workers do not like spurs because they may 
catch and rip the hide. Flake scars on the backside of a spur are the result of shaping 
the laterals for hafting. 

Hide-workers of any age can create spurs, but in all four villages, it is the older 
and younger individuals, who had a higher occurrence of spurs. It should be clear 
though that even the best knappers at times create spurs on their scrapers. At Mogesa, 
the older hide-workers, Buta (22.8 percent) and Yeka (23.5 percent), had the highest 



257 
percentage of spurs on their used-up scrapers. At Amure, the least experienced hide- 
worker, Mardos, had the highest percentage of spurs at 28 percent of his used-up 
scrapers. Hagay is partially blind and had the second highest occurrence of spurs at 14 
percent. At Eeyahoo, Arba, the least experienced hide-worker, had the most spurs at 
2.7 percent. At Patela, Uma, Gaga, and Abata have only been making scrapers for 3 
years or less and produce spurs on 6 to 7 percent of their scrapers. Darsa is the eldest 
hide-worker and has a high percentage of spurs (8.3 percent), Garbo though has the 
highest at 12.5 percent perhaps because he suffered from an eye infection and could 
not see well. The lower percentage of spurs on tutuma scrapers (Eeyahoo and Patela 
villages) may be the result of using the laterals for working edges, which eliminates 
the frequency of spurs. I believe that spurs occur more frequently on the scrapers of 
older and younger hide-workers because they have less strength and/or less control 
over the material. In a chi-square test, the number of scrapers belonging to elder and 
younger individuals with spurs was significantly different from those who are middle 
aged (see Appendix Table C-67). 

Younger individuals were especially prone to more scraper breaks than older 
individuals. The tutuma-using hide-workers have very few breaks compared to the 
zucano-using villages, probably because the scraper is more likely to fall out in the 
absence of a mastic medium. At Patela, only Abata and Arka experienced breaks. 
Abata is the youngest of those learning to scrape hides and had a 6.25 percent 
(n=l/16) breakage rate, Arka had a near 4 percent (n=l/25) and claimed that his 
scrapers were breaking because of poor material, but it may also be his age, because 
he has been scraping for thirty years. At Eeyahoo, Arba the least experienced knapper 



258 
also had the highest percentage of breaks at 10 percent (n=5/50). At the zucano-using 

villages of Mogesa and Amure, it was also the least experienced hide-workers who 
had the highest rate of breakage. At Mogesa, Mola (38 percent, n=8/21) and Yonja 
(19 percent, n= 4/21) had the highest percentage of breaks and are the least 
experienced hide-workers. At Amure, Mardos (24 percent, n=6/25) and Chamo (26 
percent, n= 5/19) had the highest proportion of breaks. In a chi-square test, the 
number of broken scrapers belonging to younger individuals (early 20s and less than 5 
years experience) was significantly different from those who are older and more 
experienced (see Appendix Table C-68). 

In a coefficient of variance analysis, I also compared the standard deviations of 
individuals to determine if more experienced individuals had less variation in their 
scraper length, breadth, distal thickness, and proximal thickness for unused and used- 
up scrapers (Figures 7-26 and 7-27; see Appendix Tables C-69 and Table C-70). I 
expected that younger individuals would have more variation in their assemblages 
because of their inexperience. However, I found that there were not patterns 
associating the amount of variation in an individual's assemblage and his experience, 
which is surprising. There was only slightly less variation among individuals who had 
over 20 years of experience than those with less experience. Perhaps though the fact 
that elder and more experienced hide-workers help younger and less experienced hide- 
workers with producing and resharpening creates a difficulty in discerning the amount 
of variation based on age. 

Hence, age and experience are reflected in the presence of spurs and breaks, 
which demonstrate a lack of experience with the material and perhaps a lack of 



259 



B 
u 



3 

s 



Hanicha (40 

Yeka (35 

Garcho (35 

Buta (30 

Arka (20 

Mokano (20 

Hagay (20 

Darsa (20 

Gamana ( 1 5 

Tina (12 

Basa(10 

Unkay (9 

Garbo (9 

Amaylo (9 

Tesfy (8 

Tinko (7 

Osha (7 

Awesto (7 

Tsoma (6 

Mola (5 

Galche (5 

Bedala (5 

Arba (5 

Yonja (4 

Uma(3 

Mardos (3 

Gaga (3 

Abata(3 

Goa(2 

Chamo (2 




10 20 30 40 50 60 

CV 


70 80 90 


■ Length A Distal Thickness - 
— ,- Width 


- — Proximal Thickness 



Figure 7-26: Graph comparing the unused scraper coefficient of variance of length, 
width, distal thickness, and proximal thickness. 



260 



Q 

c 

.£2 
'u 
o 
a. 
x 
o 

c 

a 



= 

S 

► 

■3 

c 



Hanicha (40 

Yeka (35 

Buta (30 

Arka (20 

Mokano (20 

Hagay (20 

Darsa (20 

Gamana(15 

Tina (12 

Basa(10 

Unkay (9 

Garbo (9 

Amaylo (9 

Tesfy (8 

Tinko (7 

Osha (7 

Awesto (7 

Tsoma (6 

Mola (5 

Galche (5 

Bedala (5 

Arba (5 

Yonja (4 

Uma(3 

Mardos (3 

Gaga (3 

Abata(3 

Goa(2 

Chamo (2 




5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

CV 



Length 
Width 



Distal Thickness 



Proximal Thickness 



Figure 7-27: Graph comparing the used-up scraper coefficient of variance of length, 
width, distal thickness, and proximal thickness. 



261 
strength in older hide-workers. Unexpectedly, the amount of variability within an 

individual's assemblage did not decrease with age or experience. This may be the 

result of elders aiding younger hide-workers with their scraper production and 

maintenance. 

Handedness 

In my in-depth study of 29 hide-workers in the four villages, I found only one 
individual (3 percent) who knapped left-handed. Left handedness varies in a 
population between 3 to 35 percent (Annett 1977). The small number of left-handed 
hide-workers I encountered is probably largely due to culture proscriptions against left 
handedness among the Gamo and in Ethiopia, in general. The left-handed hide- 
worker lives in the village of Patela. Despite the fact that he is left-handed he is 
considered the best knapper in the village and often helps less experienced hide- 
workers with knapping. The only difference noticeable in Tina's scrapers from the 
other Patela hide-workers is his increased tendency to use the left lateral edge as a 
secondary scraping edge preferable over the right lateral edge selected by other hide- 
workers in his village. He also did not have any scrapers that had platforms located on 
the ventral left, while all the other right-handed hide-workers in the four villages did. 
However, Tinko and all the right-handed hide-workers have platforms located on the 
ventral right. 

It has been hypothesized that flint-knappers generally hold a flake with their 
thumb over the bulb of percussion serial flaking from left to right and rotate the stone 
clockwise while flaking (Toth 1985). Therefore, in this scenario, more cortex remains 
on the right dorsal location of the tool, if a right-handed person makes the tool. Many 



262 
of the Gamo scraper platforms (70 percent) are shattered during production and it is 

not easy to determine where the original platform was in relationship to the working 
edge. Thirty percent of the platform locations were discernable and of these three- 
fourths were located on the ventral proximal position in relation to the working edge, 
the remaining ten percent were predominately lateral ventral locations. Most of the 
Gamo scrapers had little cortex remaining once the scraper was fully formed. 
However, I did collect 293 right-handed made scrapers and 17 left-handed made 
scrapers with cortex present on the dorsal side (Figure 7-28). 



4) 

ft 




Right Handed (n=293) Left Handed (n=17) 
Scrapers with Cortex 



Figure 7-28: Graph comparing handedness and the location of cortex on Gamo 
scrapers. 



My results indicate that the left-handed individual did frequently leave cortex 
on the left side of the scraper, however the sample size is small. In addition, the larger 
right-handed sample size indicates an even split between the presence of cortex on the 



263 
left and right side. I also had many scrapers that had cortex only along the dorsal 

center ridge, probably a result of shaping all sides for hafting in zucano handles, and 

use of lateral edges for scrapers hafted in tutuma handles. My study suggests that it is 

very difficult to determine handedness for flaked hafted tools based on platform and 

cortex locations. 

Discussion 

The importance of patrilineal relationships is expressed in virilocal post- 
marital residence patterns, which creates spatial organization reflecting father-and-son 
domestic/learning groups. Furthermore, with the expressed importance of kin 
relationships, there is little individual competition concerning hide production or 
scraper production. Hide- workers tend to scrape hides for the same mala and mana 
individuals who their fathers worked for within their village. They rarely sell their 
scraped hides (because they do not own them) at the market, where a more 
competitive atmosphere would be created concerning quality. 

Close (1977) offered that stone tool morphology most closely reflects 
learning groups. My own study suggests that the morphology of both unused and 
used-up scrapers reflect the teacher-student clustering within a village context. Since 
the teacher and student are father and son, who live in close proximity, scrapers not 
only cluster together in terms of morphology but also spatially within a village 
reflecting domestic groups. Furthermore, one individual in each village was known as 
the best knapper in the village; usually his scrapers most closely resembled the village 



264 
mean (for scraper morphological attributes) and thus were appreciated for their 

resemblance to an ideal type. 

White and Thomas (1972) and later White, Modjeska, and Hipuya's (1977) 
study of emic typologies among Duna men, who grew up using stone tools in the New 
Guinea Highlands, indicates the presence of a shared mental template. However, they 
also pointed out that the ideal types are not rigid and that individual idiosyncrasies and 
personality traits can be discerned in material culture and related to changes in 
material culture through time within a group. Scattergram comparisons of breadth and 
length of unused and used-up Gamo scrapers indicated that there was little individual 
expression. Although graphically it was difficult to discern individuality in the 
scrapers, t-tests did bring out statistical differences between individual scraper 
morphologies. This suggests that individual differences were produced unconsciously, 
as also supported by pile sorting tests. 

Gunn (1975) argued for the presence of idial (individual) style in stone tools 
in terms of flake scar orientation based on an experimental study of obsidian and glass 
biface production. Gunn used laser diffraction, which was not a method available to 
me in the field. Most of the Gamo scrapers exhibit a radial pattern with flake scar 
orientation varying in relation to its location on the scraper rather than in terms of 
individual idiosyncrasies. Bonnichsen (1977) and Young and Bonnichsen (1985) 
argued that individual style is present continuously as a result of decision making 
during production and use. In particular, they noted differences in flake scars created 
through individual decisions for applying: buffet (softly abrading), pressure flaking, 
pressure rub, percussion with soft hammer, percussion with hard hammer, abrading 



265 
(grinding), and shearing to projectile points. Although the hide-workers often abrade 

the distal tip, they do it in preparation to remove flakes from the edge and thus there is 

little evidence of it. They also only use hard hammer direct percussion and never use 

any pressure flaking. However, in the village of Patela individual decisions 

concerning whether to use a lateral or proximal edge for subsequent scraping led to 

individual variation and little clustering based on domestic/learning groups within the 

village for used-up scrapers. 

Gunn (1975) also determined that the experience of the knapper determined 
the tightness of the clustering. The experience and age of Gamo hide-workers did not 
seem to reflect the amount of morphological variation within an individual's 
assemblage. However, Yeka, who is an elder, scraper assemblage clustered more 
tightly than others in his village. Experience and age more commonly were reflected 
in the frequency of spurs and breaks in an assemblage. Another avenue for exploring 
the individual is research that focuses on handedness. Toth (1985) proposed that right 
and left handed individuals could be distinguished based on the location of cortex on 
the tools. However, studies by Patterson and Sollberger (1986) and Pobiner (1999) 
indicated that both right and left handed individuals produce, in equal amounts, tools 
with cortex located on the right and left side of the tool. My research bolsters the 
latter, suggesting that cortex location is not a good indicator of handedness. 

Individual expression in stone tool morphology is generally minimal (less 
than 1 mm), even if it is statistically present between most individuals concerning 
most morphological measurements. It was more common, however, for differences to 
occur in distal thickness and retouch length, than in the shape defining attributes such 



266 
as breadth, length, and thickness. Individual idiosyncrasies in scraper form provide a 

future source for changes through time in domestic assemblages. It also demonstrates 

that variation is inevitable, because as humans it is not possible to create exact replicas 

(Clark 1968:178). Changes in spatial arrangement of individual households also 

indicate change and conformity to local trends. This is evident in the analysis of the 

Eeyahoo scrapers, where individuals moved into the village and have a scraper 

morphology that differs from their father's. The Eeyahoo hide-workers continue to 

use the tutuma handle like their fathers. However, the spatial distribution of their 

scrapers reflects in some instances the zucano-user pattern rather than the tutwna-user 

pattern. In sum, in cultures where lineage is important and the source of learning craft 

production, a comparison of household spatial analysis against scraper morphology 

may reveal domestic/learning group membership. 



CHAPTER 8 

EXPLORING MATERIAL VARIATION: CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND 

REPRESENTATIONS IN THE LANDSCAPE 



Gamo stone tools clearly illustrate that their morphology and spatial location 
reflects the heterogeneous nature of intracultural life, expressing both functional and 
stylistic value. Cultures are not homogeneously bounded entities, but heterogeneous 
in terms of the activities individuals pursue in relationship to the environment and also 
their socio-political relationships and identities. Like a stone tool, whose dorsal scars 
overlap, intersect, and parallel one another, so do the individual's life and identities 
overlap, intersect, and parallel the lives of others in their society. The edges of the 
tool are renegotiated with use, just as the boundaries of identities are continually 
renegotiated. Although no two flake scars or persons are the same, discernable 
patterns can be drawn out through an understanding of context. 

Ethnoarchaeology opens new positions from which to explore emic 

interpretations concerning the similarities and differences in objects in association 

with their environmental, social, and spatial contexts. Craft production is limited to 

specific households within Gamo society. Although smiths, groundstone-makers, and 

potters produce their wares and sell them at markets, the hide-worker's stone tools 

remain within the maker's household context. Fathers teach their sons the locations of 

resources, production, use, and discard of the stone tools involved in their craft. Sons 

and fathers remain living in the same village, as postmarital residence patterns are 

267 












268 
virilocal. Since stone tools are not made for consumption by the public, like ceramics 

and iron products, they are not subject to consumer preferences and demands that may 

alter their appearance. Rather than consciously producing stone tools that are different 

from their neighbors, the Gamo unconsciously create scrapers that differ across 

households, villages, subregions, and regions, as a direct reflection of learning 

systems. Both functional and stylistic attributes of variation are dictated and learned 

within a cultural system. The Gamo hide-workers associate themselves with a variety 

of identities including ethnicity, dere membership, moiety, clan, and lineage and these 

identities interface with geographic divisions in the landscape and expose the 

functional and stylistic elements of material variation. 

Regional Relationships 

Each ethnic group within southern Ethiopia that has hide-workers maintains a 
unique hide-working technology and associated material assemblage, despite 
similarity in raw resources (mostly obsidian), activity (scraping hides), handles 
(mostly double-hafted mastic handles), and final product (bedding). There have been 
no previous in-depth studies of stone-tool using people, which focus closely on the 
production, use, and discard of the tool, as well as the reasons behind their continued 
use and incorporation into the larger social technological systems. An overview of the 
Gamo hide-workers' social and economic roles within their society contextualizes the 
meanings behind the types of resources they use and their location on the landscape. 
Subsequently, when the Gamo hide-working technology is compared to others in 



269 
southern Ethiopia the sources for influential similarities and regional differences 

become apparent. 

Social-Economic Context and Resources 

The socio-economic context of the Gamo hide- workers offers explanations for 
the types of resources they use and their location in the landscape. The Gamo artisans 
{tsoma) are held in a traditional patron-client relationship (mayla) with the mala, 
which is maintained through social taboos and their symbolic association with the 
material world. Prescriptive taboos (goma) restrict the types and locations of 
interactions between mala and tsoma, including marriage, sex, and food. The mala 
consider the tsoma impure because of their associated materials, stones and deceased 
animals, which the mala consider to be and/or to cause infertility of land and people. 
Yet the hide-workers are mediators, who transform the impure hides and stones into 
useful everyday items, just as they transform infertile people into fertile ones through 
performing circumcision and mediating social harmony through the announcement of 
village meetings, weddings, and funerals. The artisans enact critical roles in rituals, 
which symbolically cool or relieve illness, mediate life, death, and social harmony and 
instigate human fertility. In turn, these mediating roles ensure the well being and 
continuance of Gamo society, and integrate the artisans into Gamo society both 
economically and socially. Over the past four centuries, the Gamo incorporated their 
own understandings of purity with new religions including Orthodox Christianity, 
Protestantism, and Islam. In order to become members of an organized religion, the 
hide-worker must give up his/her "impure" occupation and social roles in society, 



270 
especially in the Orthodox and Protestant churches. Both of the latter advocate the 

discontinued use of blowing the horn for ceremonies and traditional means of 

circumcision and healing. Furthermore, the Italians introduced western medical 

clinics, which now perform many circumcisions and offer other medical services. The 

subsequent socialist government prohibited the enactment of local ceremonies, such as 

rites of passage and divining. The prohibition of traditional artisan roles threatens 

their sources in food security and the social harmony (albeit discriminatory) in which 

they depend for existence. 

The concept of the hide-workers as impure within Gamo society not only 
affects which materials they use, but also determines their position on the regional 
landscape. The association of the hide-workers with impurity means that they are not 
able to bury their ancestors in the community mourning ground or in church 
graveyards. They are allowed to bury their ancestors only within their household 
gardens, because the mala fear that they would pollute their own ancestors if buried 
together. They are given very poor, infertile land to live on and hence hide-workers 
tend to live in clusters on the edge of villages on steeply graded slopes and on poor 
soils. Stones are thought to cause infertility and impurity, and the mala do not tolerate 
them in their fields or near their households or gardens. The context of stone tools 
within and near specific clustered households in a village on poor soils and steep 
grades within a region offer clues to future archaeologists for discerning craft 
production areas of low status within a known cultural region. 

The Gamo historical interactions with other societies also have affected their 
material culture. Geographically the Gamo territory is surrounded by lowland plateau 



271 
and is clearly definable spatially from neighboring ethnic groups. Yet, they are not 

culturally bounded or segregated from their neighbors either in the past or today. 
Currently, the Gamo primarily only scrape cattle hides. Wild animal hides and goat 
and sheep hides are no longer scraped for several reasons. First, the national 
government of Ethiopia made it illegal to kill wild animals and the animals are 
becoming very rare. Second, Addis Ababa tanneries pay high prices for raw 
unscraped goat and sheep hides from the rural areas and so goat and sheep hides are 
rarely made into local products. Third, the products made out of wild animal hides 
and goat and sheep hides, such as clothing, rope, and bags, are being replaced with 
western products. Today, the Gamo scrape hides predominately to make bedding, and 
an occasional musical instrument or cape. Hence, within Gamo society and in 
southern Ethiopia in general, there is a decreased demand for hides because of the 
influx of western products, which limits most hide-working to a part-time occupation. 
Today although some hide-workers have land, the planting seasons coincide with the 
seasons best for stone quarrying. Thus, it is difficult to maintain substantial crops 
while also scraping hides. Furthermore, with the end of the socialist government, 
some hide-workers are again losing their land. They are exceptionally poor for rural 
peoples and are unable to attend school, which would offer them opportunities to 
obtain local or national government positions. Hence, they continue to scrap hides 
with stone as a part-time occupation because of the lack of other economic 
opportunities. 

The Gamo are unique in southern Ethiopia for their use of two handle types to 
haft their scrapers, which is probably in part related to interethnic relationships. The 



272 
Gamo use a double-hafted handle (zucano), and the Cushitic Sidama, Cushitic Hadiya, 

Ethio-Semitic Gurage, and Omotic Wolayta also use this handle form. Other Gamo 

hide-workers use a single-hafted handle (tutuma) like their Omotic neighbors, the 

Oyda. The Gamo handles are most similar to the handles of the Wolayta and Oyda. 

All three of these ethnic groups are Omotic-speakers, who share an ideology 

concerning the mediating role of hide-workers in marriage, initiation, and death 

ceremonies. This suggests material worlds are fluid and flexible between ethnic groups 

that share a common ideology. Yet, the latter does not explain the widespread use of 

the double-hafted handle among the linguistic and culturally diverse southern Ethiopian 

societies. There is little known about the history and especially the prehistory of 

southern Ethiopia, but what we do know may help offer an explanation for the 

similarities in material culture. Oral histories among many of these ethnic groups 

suggest that artisans are not indigenous but an immigrant population (Haberland 1984; 

Hallpike 1968; Levine 1974). Between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries the 

Ethiopian state was redefined to include the southern people of Ethiopia including the 

Hadiya, Sidama, Gurage, Wolayta, and Gamo (Marcus 1994:19-29; Shack 1966:17; 

Bureau 1976, 1979). The military, church officials, and civil servants also required 

fine cloth, jewelry, weaponry, shields, etc., which only craft specialists could supply. It 

may be that similarity in handle type among many southern Ethiopian societies was 

influenced during this feudalistic period, when the northern peoples brought their own 

artisans or preferred technology with them. However, it should be made clear that 

artisans in each ethnic group speak the same language and share the same cultural traits 

with the farmers of their respective ethnic groups. Future research concerning hide- 



273 
working and other craft specializations is needed to explore the historical and material 

links between the ethnic groups of southern Ethiopia. 
Stone Tools 

The Gamo scrapers serve as an example to demonstrate the concept that 
culture limits function as much as it does social representation. Gamo scrapers vary in 
relation to raw material selection, their uselife, and the activities in which they are 
used, including scraping and chopping, and use on highland and lowland cattle hides. 
These activities are unique to Gamo hide-workers and are as much an ethnic marker as 
a functional one. 

Importantly, the study of Gamo hide-working material culture demonstrates 
that cultural practices rather than raw material determine stone tool morphology. 
Despite the presence and use of different types of stone materials, the Gamo make a 
specific scraper type, which is uniquely their own. The local ecology provides some 
unique opportunities for the Gamo hide-workers. Most southern Ethiopian hide- 
workers, including the Sidama, Hadiya, Wolayta, and Gurage, who use stone, make 
their scrapers from obsidian. However, the Gamo region is rich in cherts rather than 
obsidian. The Gamo obtain obsidian through trade with the Wolayta. The only other 
ethnic group studied to date, which uses two types of stone material are the Konso, 
who use chert and quartz. The Gamo are unique in that they use both chert and 
obsidian resources. The Gamo make their obsidian scrapers slightly longer than their 
chert scrapers because obsidian fractures more easily, affecting the reduction rate of 
the use edge. During use, the obsidian scrapers are reduced more than chert scrapers. 



274 
The Gamo used-up chert and obsidian scrapers have similar morphologies, which are 

statistically and visually indistinguishable concerning all measured attributes. Hence, 

the Gamo share a common idea concerning the morphology of unused and used-up 

scraper form. 

Although stages of use are discernable in terms of scraper morphology and 
context within Gamo society, each ethnic group expresses its own unused and used-up 
morphology. Within all Gamo hide-working households and nearby contexts, there 
are both unused and used-up scrapers. Specifically, used-up scrapers are shorter, have 
more rounding along the working edge, have a higher edge angle, and more depth to 
their retouch scars. The Gamo consciously distinguish unused from used-up scrapers. 
Furthermore, they are able to list specific attributes such as length, dullness of the 
edge, and thickness to differentiate the stages of scraper use. The unused and used-up 
scrapers of other ethnic groups such as the Konso, who also use chert, and the Sidama, 
Gurage, Wolayta, and Hadiya, who also use obsidian are distinct from the Gamo 
scrapers (Brandt et al. 1996). Each ethnic group has a unique unused and used-up 
scraper form despite similarities in raw material. 

The Gamo will use a single scraper for both chopping and scrapping activities, 
while other ethnic groups such as the Sidama and Gurage produce two distinct 
scrapers specifically for these activities. The Gamo scrapers that are used for both 
scraping and chopping are statistically different from those used only for scraping. 
The presence of chopping within Gamo technology is the result of the seasonal 
availability of chert and hides. Gamo cherts are available only during the rainy season 
when they erode out of their basaltic formations. Rather than collecting chert during 



275 
the rainy season and storing them for when hides are available, the hide-workers 

choose to store the hides until cherts are available. They do not like chert that has 

been exposed to the air for long periods because it forms a patina, which makes for a 

duller edged tool. When the hides dry, the edges shrivel up, becoming tough and the 

hide-workers use a specific activity, chopping, to reduce the edge of the hide. 

Scrapers used for chopping at the hide tend to have a thicker distal edge and longer 

retouch scars because the working edge needs to be duller and smoother. These 

differences in the used-edge (thickness and length of retouch scars) of the Gamo 

scrapers is something present on a selection of scrapers in all Gamo hide-worker 

households, so these attributes are both an ethnic marker and a functional one. 

Furthermore, because the Gamo region contains both a highland and lowland 
area, all the Gamo hide-workers scrape highland and lowland cattle hides. Other 
ethnic groups, to our current knowledge, do not scrape both highland and lowland 
cattle hides. The Villagization plans of the socialist government opened the lowlands 
for occupation by the highlander Gamo. This probably resulted in the increase 
scraping of lowland hides. The type of hide scraped affects the distal edge of the 
scraper. The hide-workers stated that lowland hides are thicker and take longer to 
scrape. They consciously recognize that individual scrapers may be used longer on 
lowland hides causing the distal edge to be thicker with more resharpening scars. 

Within every Gamo hide-working household context, there may be difference 
in the scrapers based on their stages of use and in the working edge due to the scraping 
of lowland and highland hides, as well as chopping verses scraping activities. There 
were no other morphological differences in terms of length, width, edge angle, 



276 
proximal thickness, etc., which were affected by these differences in activities, 

because the Gamo do not make specific scrapers for chopping, scraping or for lowland 

and highland hides. These activities are unique to Gamo society, and reveal the rich 

functional variation that can be unique to a single ethnic group. There are also other 

significant differences in the hide-working materials and technology between the 

Gamo and other ethnic groups. The amount of time spent scraping a hide, the number 

of scrapers used to scrape a hide, the amount that a scraper is reduced during scraping, 

the location of procurement, production are specific to each ethnic group (Brandt et al. 

1996; Brandt and Weedman 1997). Hence, each ethnic group's hide-working practices 

reveal differences not only in their scraper morphology, but also in the related 

technology. Function and style are unique to each ethnic group and are difficult to 

segregate from context. 

Subregional 

The Gamo scrapers demonstrate that morphology varies based on intraethnic 
group membership. Archaeologists focusing on lithic studies tend to regard cultures 
as homogenous, and hence they view any intracultural variation as a difference in 
function rather than in group membership. Cultures are heterogeneous, and the Gamo 
have three subregional territories - south, central, and north and ten political districts- 
deres. The three subregions are different in terms of the types of local political leaders 
and the responsibilities of artisans. The central Gamo share cultural features with both 
the southern and northern Gamo and hence their material culture reflects their medial 
position between the northern and southern Gamo subregions. External relationships 



277 
such as the extent of the involvement with the national market systems and 

relationships to other ethnic groups have also differentially affected the Gamo 

subregions. 

Within Gamo society, there are regional differences in the types of materials 
used for scrapers dependent on local environments and external socio-economic 
relationships. The Gamo use glass, iron, chert, and obsidian as scrapers, but the 
distribution of these resources is different across the landscape (Table 8-1). Primarily 
the central Gamo use glass. In the past, many of the central Gamo had to purchase 
chert at the market place because they had no local resources. Integration into national 
trade systems expanded with the socialist government of the 1970s, increasing the 
presence of industrially manufactured goods such as bottled beer, soft drinks, and 
water within the Gamo region. The hide-workers, who previously obtained their stone 
resources by purchasing it in the market, are finding even though they prefer stone, 
they use glass. They simply pick up pieces of broken bottle glass, which is now 
common on the surface of towns, to use for scrapers. The Ganta and Kamba hide- 
workers of the southern Gamo region use iron. Kamba borders with other Omotic 
ethnic groups such as the Male and Gofa, who also use iron. Today chert and obsidian 
stone scrapers are used primarily by the southern and northern hide-workers. The 
Gamo obtain obsidian through trade with the Wolayta, and hence it mostly appears in 
the assemblages of the northern Gamo, who live the closest to the Wolayta. 

The subregional distribution of handle types among the Gamo is not 
environmentally dictated, but instead is related to external (see above discussion under 
Regional subheading) and internal social relationships. As previously stated, within 



278 
Gamo society the hide-workers use two different handle types. The southern and 

central Gamo hide workers use the tutuma handle and the northern Gamo hide workers 

use the zucano handle, to do the exact same work (Table 8-1). The central and 

southern Gamo live in a predominately highland region and the tutuma handle is 

usually made of highland resources. In contrast, the zucano handle is primarily made 

out of lowland resources, and used by the northern Gamo who live in a lowland 

environment. However, there is not a clear-cut division of the highland and lowland 

regions into the cultural subregions of the Gamo. For example, there are northern 

Gamo hide-workers who live in a highland area and southern and central Gamo who 

live in a lowland area. Yet, they use the handle type of their subregion rather than 

being dictated by the local environment. 



Table 8-1: Comparison of subregional handles, raw materials, scraper types, and 
spatial distributions. 



Sub- 
region 


Handle 
Type 


Raw 
Material 


Unused 
Scraper 
Type 


Location 

of 

Production 


Location 

of 

Scraping 


Location 

of 

Discard 


North 


Zucano 


Obsidian 
& Chert 


Formal 


At quarry 


Inside 
household 


In 

household 
in specific 
trash pits 


Central 


Tutuma 

& 

Zucano 


Chert & 
Glass 


Informal 


At household 


Outside 
household 


In garden 


South 


Tutuma 


Chert & 
Iron 


Informal 


At household 


Outside 
household 


In garden 



The distribution of handles is related to intraethnic social relationships. In the 
past, the central Gamo used two-different handle types, the zucano like the northern 



279 
Gamo and the tutuma like the southern Gamo (Table 8-1). Culturally there are 

overlaps in the roles of artisans between the three regions-north, central, and south. 
The central and southern Gamo hide-workers perform circumcisions, healing, and act 
as messengers, while the northern hide-workers do not. In addition, the central and 
northern hide-workers belong to a separate caste group from the potters, while in the 
south hide-workers and potters belong to the same caste group. Although there are 
hide-workers in the northern region who use a tutuma handle, they recently moved 
into the area from the central Gamo region. Furthermore, there are central Gamo hide- 
workers who use a zucano handle. In the past, the central Gamo used both handle 
types for two different functions {zucano for cattle hides and tutuma for goat hides). 
Today, they have ceased to use the zucano type handle because the cost of acquiring 
those resources exceeds their demand and payment for hides. The only the central 
hide-workers who continue to use a zucano handle today, have marital ties with hide- 
workers in the northern region. 

The presence of the two handle types is associated with the presence of two 
different scraper types and site formation processes among the Gamo (Table 8-1). 
Archaeologists confronted with the Gamo lithic assemblage probably would interpret 
these differences either as representing two separate cultures or as the result of 
functional differences. For instance, archaeologists might assume that the presence of 
two scraper types represents a difference in access to resources. Archaeologists 
postulate that direct access to resources leads to a curated tool form and indirect access 
leads to an informal tool form (Henry 1989; Parry and Kelley 1987; Shott 1986). This 
pattern does not hold true among the Gamo. The informal scraper hafted in a tutuma 



280 
handle and the more formal scraper hafted in a zucano handle are both procured 

through direct and indirect sources. Gamo handle and scraper types are not the result 

of availability of stone resources. Hence, the presence of two different scraper 

morphologies and site formation process among the Gamo is exciting for its 

implications that stone tools used within a single culture for the exact same function 

can express significant variation based on internal social differences. 

The zucano closed-mastic hafted scrapers have a formal stone tool morphology 

with shaping of the working edge, the laterals, the proximal, and sometimes reduction 

of the dorsal ridge to fit the scraper into the closed haft. The used-up zucano scrapers 

sometimes have an undercut as the result of resharpening in a mastic haft. If they 

break during use, they usually break at the medial. Furthermore, only a single edge, 

the distal, is used for scraping and resharpening. The shaping scars on the laterals the 

zucano -hafted scrapers are much shorter in length, than the retouch scars left on edges 

that have been used and resharpened. The formal nature of the zucano scrapers leads 

to difference in the spatial location of production, use, and discard activities (Table 8- 

1). Zucano scrapers are shaped at the quarry and kept safely inside the household. 

Therefore, only scraper blanks, scrapers, and retouch flakes are found in and nearby 

zucano households. The hides are scraped inside the household, which means that 

retouch debitage is present on the house floor. The scrapers are removed near the 

hearth inside the house, and can often be found lying on the surface. Occasionally, 

they sweep the floor moving retouch and scrapers to the edges of the household, and 

they also sweep them onto an enset leaf and then place them in specific lithic-only 



281 
discard piles. These are located outside the household, usually in thorn bushes near 

footpaths. 

In contrast, the scrapers of the open-nonmastic tutuma handles express an 
informal morphology with little if any shaping of the flake when first hafted (Table 8- 
1). The used-up tutuma-scrapcrs are also different from the zucano used-up scrapers. 
7Wwma-using hide-workers use multiple sides of the scraper for scraping. This creates 
deeper retouch scars and steeper edge angles on several sides of the tata/na-scrapers, 
which contrasts to the single use-edge of the zucano-hafted scrapers. Furthermore, 
when the tutuma-hafted scrapers are broken, they tend to break in a variety of ways 
and not just at the medial. Furthermore, the materials from the entire reduction 
sequence of the scraper can be found within the context of a tutuma-us'mg household. 
They shape tutuma scrapers at the household right before use and keep the nodules of 
raw material outside. Tutuma-users scrape their hides outside in their enset gardens 
rather than within their household. The hide-workers produce, use, and discard 
scrapers within their enset garden. 

In addition to differences in handles and scrapers related to the cultural 
subregions, each of the ten Gamo deres (political districts) has a distinct unused and 
used-up scraper form. Each dere is separated from its neighbor by a river or mountain 
ridge. There is some debate concerning whether each of these deres represented an 
independent kingdom in the past or not, and were currently united under the force to 
defend themselves against the Amhara in the 16 th century (Abeles 1981; Straube 
1963:381). Today, the Gamo people closely identify themselves with their dere 
membership because it is the Kao, who makes sacrifices to the ancestors to ensure 



282 
fertile crops, animals, and people for his dere membership. Furthermore, most hide- 
workers live and marry within the same dere. The handle morphology of the different 
dere scrapers cluster in terms of regional membership and exchange relationships. For 
instance, Kogo, Doko, and Borada zucano handles share a similar morphology, and 
Kogo and Doko handles were purchased from makers in the Borada dere. In addition, 
Borada tutuma handles are most similar to those from Kogo, Zada, and Doko, where 
the owners of the Borada tutumas came from. Most significantly is a statistical 
difference of the shape defining ratios (e.g., breadth/length and thickness/length) 
corresponding to each dere for both unused and used-up scrapers. This suggests a 
shared mental template concerning scraper form on the dere level. 

Conformity to a dere or regional type was explored in my study of three hide- 
workers who moved from the dere^of Kogo, where tutumas are used, to the dere of 
Borada, where zucanos are primarily used. These hide-workers continued to use a 
tutuma handle and produce tutuma-like scrapers, as their fathers did in Kogo. 
However, some aspects of their household spatial arrangement resembled the Borada- 
zucano pattern. They scraped their hides inside rather than outside and they had 
specific discard location for their scrapers rather than throwing them in their enset 
garden. The Kogo hide-workers could not just move to a new dere and mota without 
permission. They needed the local government or a mala patron to allocate land to 
them, and they had to have the permission of the residing hide-workers. Generally, 
hide-workers can only move into a village where they share the same clan name, 
because resources are shared between members of the same clan. In this instance, two 
of the hide-workers did not have the same clan name as the residing hide-workers, but 



283 
their sisters married men of the residing hide-worker clan. Therefore, they were able 

to move to the new dere and mota. The Kogo hide-workers were grateful for the land 

that was granted to them by the people of Borada. 

Differential social and economic interactions between the Gamo subregions 

and their Omotic neighbors have led to distinct scraper forms and spatial distributions. 

Furthermore, marriage patterns and resource availability has also affected intraethnic 

distributions of material culture. This suggests that archaeologists looking at a single 

cultural group should not assume that morphological differences in stone tools 

represent different functions, but instead may be fine grained indicators of internal 

social differences. 

Intervillage 

Intracultural variations in stone tools also express differences between 
members of different villages. Studies linking residence and artifact variation are 
common among ceramic studies, but are virtually absent among stone tool studies. 
Village hide-workers are typically the members of a single lineage, who learn hide- 
working skills from their fathers. They unconsciously create a distinct scraper form 
that reflects their descent groups including moieties, clans, and lineages. 

Endogamous kinship relationships associate the hide-workers with impurity 
and landlessness, which fastens them into their craft occupations and segregates their 
descendants from others in society. The hide-workers' ancestral-clan totems 
symbolically articulate their low social status within Gamo society. The names of the 
first degala ancestor (Impure Protect Me) are directly contrasted to the first mala 



284 
ancestor (Priest Wealthy/Landowner). In addition, goma (taboos) prevents the 

marriage between degala and mala members, yet they share the same clan names. 

This is explained through the idea that landless degala received their current clan 

names from the mala who gave them land to live on and food. The degala hold true to 

the proscriptive rules that disallow marriage to an individual of one's father's clan, and 

usually marry women from the opposite moiety. 

Although there is no conscious effort to make scrapers different from the 
opposite moiety or from other clans, there are statistical differences. Learning patterns 
and residence are linked, creating difference in the material culture and its spatial 
location at the clan and moiety level. Each dere has hide-workers belonging to both 
moieties, which allows for intradere marriages. Since hide-workers learn their craft 
from their fathers instead of their father-in-laws, there is little exchange of information 
concerning hide-working between members of different clans and moieties. 
Consequently, the handle and scraper morphologies of the Gamo moieties and clans 
were statistically different in almost all morphological measurements. 

The hide-workers do not consciously produce scrapers that are different from 
other villages. Since their fathers and uncles teach them, they produce scrapers that 
are similar in form. It is the overall scraper form, rather than specific attributes, which 
define social group membership. Each village has scrapers that are internally similar, 
especially in terms of breadth/length and thickness/length ratios. However, there are 
clear differences in unused and used-up scraper morphologies between villages 
indicating that lineages share a mental template concerning scraper form and 
appropriate scraping and resharpening practices. 



285 
Although they unconsciously produce unique scrapers representing their social 

groups, the hide-workers are able to recognize their own scrapers based on raw 

material color. This is not a result of limited color variation within different quarries, 

but because stone tool-makers prefer specific colors associated with better fracturing. 

Each village of hide-workers uses one or two specific chert sources, which are not 

shared with hide-workers from other villages. Hide-workers are extremely protective 

of their stone quarries. At each quarry, there is one particular color of chert that is 

generally thought to be more glass-like and is the favorite of the hide-workers. The 

hide-workers were able to select their own village scrapers from others in a sorting 

test, because of the color of the chert. My study shows that statistically chert color 

does tend to correlate with village membership. However, detailed studies of quarries 

and the quality of cherts produced is still needed to assess whether this is a true 

difference based on resource quality, or, as I suspect, local choice. 

In sum, moiety, clan, and village scrapers are morphologically distinct because 

each village represents a single lineage of hide-workers, who have learned the craft 

from their ancestors. The learning context provides a similarity in mental template, 

which in turn results in an unconscious similarity in scraper form within a lineage, 

clan, and moiety. 

Household and Intravillage 

The strong stress on clan and lineage membership in Gamo society led me to 
suspect that scraper morphology would represent learning groups, but not individual 
expression within the village context. However, I found that in addition to learning 



286 
groups, age, experience, and the individual were expressed in scraper morphology, 

although handedness was not. The presence of individual expression in stone tools 

heightens the importance of maintaining a thorough understanding of the context of 

the tools being compared. Archaeologists have not previously explored the 

importance that age and experience may have on the formation of artifacts, and for this 

reason, they have mistakenly attributed breakage patterns and spurs to differences in 

quality of resources and activities. 

Examination of scrapers in household clusters within a village reveals the 
presence of learning groups and virilocal residence patterns. As a product of virilocal 
residence, the hide-worker households cluster in terms of patrilineal descent, so that 
fathers and sons live near to one another. Within a village, there is similarity in 
scraper form expressed within teacher-student groups, which are statistically different 
from other teacher-student groups within the village. Since the teacher and student are 
father and son, who live in close proximity, scrapers not only cluster in terms of 
morphology, but also spatially within a village reflecting domestic groups. Fathers 
and sons share discard piles and often share a scraping frame, especially when the 
younger hide-worker has just married. Hence, individuals of the same teacher-student 
group share activity and discard areas and their scrapers are more similar to one 
another than to others in their village. 

Although, there is no competition between village hide-workers to obtain raw 
materials and produce "the best scraper," in each village there is a hide-worker who is 
considered the best knapper. Each lineage has a concept of an ideal type or perhaps an 
acceptable range for scraper morphology within a village. Hide-workers are primarily 



287 
concerned with fitting breadth and thickness for fitting the scraper in the haft and the 

distal edge thickness and sharpness for scraping. The scrapers belonging to the best 

knapper in a village most closely resemble the village morphological means, 

especially concerning distal edge angle and thickness, and thus perhaps the village 

ideal type. This individual is often requested by others to aid in scraper production 

and resharpening, especially when the material seems difficult to work. 

Individual idiosyncrasies produce scraper forms that are unique to the 
individual maker. There are statistically significant differences between the scrapers 
of individuals living within the same village. Yet, in an assemblage containing their 
village scrapers, hide-workers were unable to select out their own scrapers. This 
suggests that there is little conscious effort placed on expressing individual identity 
within a scraper's morphology. Although statistically significant, the morphological 
differences are so small at less than 1 mm that in most cases they would be visually 
indistinguishable. 

Furthermore, there are clear signs of individuality expressed in scrapers in the 
presence of spurs and breakage rates. Younger and older individuals more frequently 
produced accidental spurs because of their inexperience or waning strength. In 
addition, younger individuals, especially those who had worked for five years or less, 
were more likely to break their scrapers than more experienced individuals. This is 
significant because these features have previously been ascribed to aspects of 
functional variation. 

Lastly, there is no indication that handedness is visible in flaked-stone tools. A 
study of platform and cortex location indicates that there are similar patterns among 






288 
right handed and left handed hide-workers. However, in Gamo society the percentage 

of hide-workers using their left hand to knap with is low (3 percent). I suspect that 

this is the result of cultural stigmatism against left-handed persons. However, in one 

village the individual considered the best knapper is left handed. 

To bring us full circle, it should not be forgotten that every Gamo household 

retains scrapers that reflect functional differences. For instance, within the household 

there are unused and used-up scrapers located in specific contexts, which are 

dependent on the hide-workers' subregional location and handle use. Each household 

also has scrapers that have distal edges that differ based on their use on highland and 

lowland cattle hides or their use for chopping and/or scraping. 

Significant Attributes and Scales of Analysis 

Archaeologists who tend to segregate stylistic and functional variation also 
attempt to decipher which attributes represent style and which represent function. I 
hope that it is clear by now that both aspects of variation are present within a single 
technological system. It is therefore difficult to segregate attributes into either stylistic 
or functional meaning without also incorporating an understanding of context. 

This study only examined variation associated with an unifunctional form: a 
scraper for cattle hides to produce bedding. However, within this system there are 
notable differences in activity. Scrapers with functional variation are present in all 
household assemblages and include differences in stages of use, type of hide, and type 
of scraping activity. Differences in stages of use, i.e., between unused and used-up 
scrapers expressed statistically significant variability in almost all dimensions 



289 
including length, thickness, depth of retouch, breadth/length ratio, thickness/length 

ratio, edge angle, and cross section (Table 8-2). Interestingly, the tools are not 

reduced enough through the life cycle to produce a significant decrease in weight. In 

addition, the scrapers are rarely altered on the laterals (exception for some tutuma- 

hafted scrapers), and hence there was not a significant difference in breadth between 

unused and used-up scrapers. It is notable that the most significant differences in 

scraper morphology associated with differences in types of activities such as scraping 

verses chopping and hide type tended to be associated with changes in distal working 

edge, especially edge thickness and retouch depth (Table 8-2). 

A comparison of scraper morphology across different social group contexts 
indicates that shape-defining attributes such as breadth, length, thickness, 
breadth/length ratio, and thickness/length ratio are the most useful for identifying style 
(Tables 8-3 and 8-4). If we compare Tables 8-3 and 8-4, it is evident that used-up 
scrapers (Table 8-4) have fewer significantly different variables than unused scrapers 
(Table 8-3). In order to be listed as a significant variable for each social group, ninety 
percent of the comparisons had to be significant. 

The most difficult type of style to identify is individual style, because the 
attributes used to define it are not consistent for each individual. For example, I can 
not say that breath/length or any other measurement was consistently different 
between all the individuals studied. Unfortunately, there is overlap between the 
attributes for discerning functionally different unused and used-up scrapers and those 
used for differentiating social groups. Hence, context is exceptionally important when 
trying to discern the meanings behind stone tool variation. 



290 



Table 8-2: Comparison of significant lithic attributes associated with functional 
differences (o = no significant difference, + = a significant difference, and - = 
attribute not compared). 



Attribute 


Unused 
Vs Used-up 
Scrapers 


Raw Material 

Unused 

Scrapers 


Raw Material 

Used-up 

Scrapers 


Chopping vs. 
Scraping 
All used-up 


Type of Hide 
All used-up 


Breadth 





o 





o 


- 


Length 





+ 











Proximal 
Thickness 





+ 








- 


Distal 
Thickness 


+ 


o 


o 


+ 


+ 


Breadth/ 
Length 


+ 


+ 











Distal 

Thickness/ 

Length 


+ 








+ 





Weight 

















Retouch Length 


+ 


o 





+ 


+ 


Edge Angle 


+ 


o 





o 





Dorsal Scar 





- 


- 


- 





Cross-section 


+ 


- 


- 


- 





Planform 





- 


- 


- 


o 


Platform Types 





- 


- 


- 





Cortex 





- 


- 


- 


- 



291 



Table 8-3: Important unused scraper attributes associated with social group 
membership (o = no significant difference, + = a significant difference, and - = 
attribute not compared). A significant difference is assigned if 90 percent of the 
comparison were significant. 



Attribute 


Subreigions 
Zucano vs. 
Tutuma 


3 'C 

o 22 
cu -a 


>-> 
6 

"3 


c 

U 


u 

■ 

c 


C Eg) 

'S B 

c3 O 

J o 


3 

-a 
■> 


B 

o 

c 

'C 
— u 

< u 


C/3 
M 

B 

s 

T3 
T3 

a 

a 

X 


Raw 
material 


- 


- 


- 


- 


+ 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Breadth 








+ 





+ 











- 


Length 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 











- 


Proximal 
Thickness 


+ 


+ 


+ 





+ 





o 





- 


Distal 
Thickness 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 








- 


Breadth/ 
Length 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 








- 


Distal 
Thickness 

/Length 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


o 


o 


m 


Weight 





- 


- 


- 


- 


- 








- 


Retouch 
Length 


+ 


+ 





+ 


+ 


+ 








- 


Edge 
Angle 





- 


- 


- 


+ 











- 


Dorsal 

Scar 


+ 





- 


- 


- 


- 


- 





- 


Cross- 
section 


+ 





- 


- 


- 


- 


- 





- 


Planform 


+ 





- 


- 


- 


- 


- 





- 


Platform 
Types 


+ 





- 


- 


- 


- 


- 





- 


Spurs 


+ 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 




+ 


- 


Breakage 


+ 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 




+ 


- 


Cortex 
Location 

I 


o 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 




- 






292 



Table 8-4: Important used-up scraper attributes associated with social group 
membership (o = no significant difference, + = a significant difference, and - = 
attribute not compared). A significant difference is assigned if 90 percent of the 
comparison were significant. 



Attribute 


Subreigions 
Zucano vs. Tutuma 


(/) 
o 
'C 

"3 

o 

p 

Oh 


o 


c 

u 


c 


(A 

3 

o 
c 

o 

| 

1 

3 


3 
a 

> 

■3 

c 

t— 1 


u 

o 

c 

'6 

>. S 
<u EL 

< PJ 


1/) 
<L> 

a 
-a 
6 
-a 

c 
a 

X 


Raw 

material 


- 


- 


- 


- 


+ 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Breadth 


+ 





+ 





+ 











- 


Length 


+ 





+ 





+ 











- 


Proximal 
Thickness 


+ 


o 


+ 





+ 











- 


Distal 
Thickness 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


o 


o 


- 


Breadth/ 
Length 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 


+ 








- 


Distal 

Thickness 

/Length 


+ 


+ 





+ 


+ 


+ 








m 


Weight 





- 


- 





- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


Retouch 
Length 


+ 


+ 


- 





+ 


+ 








- 


Edge 
Angle 





- 


- 





- 


+ 





o 


- 


Dorsal 

Scar 


- 





- 


- 





o 


- 


- 


- 


Cross- 
section 


- 





- 


- 








- 





- 


Planform 


- 


o 


- 


- 


o 


o 


- 


o 


- 


Platform 
Types 


- 





- 


- 





o 


- 


o 


- 


Spurs 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


+ 


- 


Breakage 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


+ 


- 


Cortex 
Location 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 






293 
Future Directions in Lithic Ethnoarchaeology 



This is the first long-term study of stone tools with hide-workers in southern 
Ethiopia. Currently, we know of at least nine other ethnic groups (Amarro, Dizi, 
Gurage, Hadiya, Konso, Oyda, Sidama, and Wolayta), who use stone tools for 
scraping hides in southern Ethiopia (Brandt 1996; Brandt et al. 1996). A 
comprehensive survey still needs to be conducted to determine if ethnic groups farther 
to the west and southwest use stone. It is my hope that future research will be 
conducted among the Gamo and other stone tool using ethnic groups to reveal a more 
intricate understanding of the style and function debate as discussed above, as well as 
craft specialization, gender, and site formation processes. 

Craft Specialization 

Hayden (1990) proposed a model to explain the importance of hide-working in 
the evolution of complex societies. He argues that simple hunting/gathering societies 
have little social need for skin clothes, and their tools display generalized 
morphologies on locally available raw materials. In complex hunting/gathering 
societies, garments become status-display items resulting in the use of 
morphologically specialized hide-working tools made on carefully selected raw 
materials. Hide-workers would be selected specifically for the quality of their work, 
leading eventually to craft specialization and standardization in form. 

A study of Ethiopian hide-workers can contribute to the archaeological testing 
of Hayden's model by providing relevant social/economic data from a systematic 
context. Such data can be combined with archaeological indicators of complexity and 



294 
craft specialization to form a model. They can be tested not just on hunter-gatherer 

sites, but at such chiefdom/state-level sites such as Aksum in northern Ethiopia, where 

the appearance of large quantities of end scrapers in restricted areas correspond to 

increasing evidence for political complexity (Michaels 1991:69). Future studies of 

hide-working societies in association with the excavation of historic and prehistoric 

sites may offer a wider array of explanations for the development of and the time 

depth of craft specialization associated with stone tools in southern Ethiopia. 

Gender 

Ethnohistory and ethnography have documented women making and using 
stone tools (Bird 1993; Goodale 1971; Gould 1977:166; Hamilton 1980; Hayden 
1977:183-186; Holmes 1919:316; Tindale 1965:246). Yet, women identified as tool- 
makers are often masked over by themes of man the hunter and the tool-maker (Conkey 
and Spector 1984; Gero 1991; Nelson 1997:95-98; Zihlman 1997). The role of gender 
in the past as an organizing feature of society has been the focus of few articles 
concerning lithic technology (Casey 1998; Gero 1991; Kehoe 1990; Mazel 1989; 
Sassaman 1992; Wadley 1989). Although avenues are opening for exploring the 
relationships between gender and space (Conkey 1991; Kent 1998), division of labor 
(Gero 1991; Wright 1996), and power (Nelson 1997; Spector 1991). Other 
archaeological studies of stone tools have suggested that variation in terms of expedient 
tools and formally shaped tools represent differences in the gender of the maker in 
archaeological studies in South America (Gero 1991), North America (Sassaman 1992, 
1997), and West Africa (Casey 1998). 



295 
Although all previous studies of Ethiopian hide-workers have shown them to be 

exclusively male, it is clear from our brief reconnaissance in 1995 (Brandt 1996; 

Brandt et al. 1996) that women also are independently manufacturing and using flaked 

stone tools for hide-working among the Wolayta and Konso. This has tremendous 

implications for studying the role of women as stone tool-makers and users, both from 

systemic and archaeological contexts (Conkey and Spector 1984; Gero 1991). If 

gender differences in Konso society account for the variability witnessed in the 

synchronic appearance of stone tools that are functionally similar, then there should be 

a statistically significant difference between the scrapers of men and women, who use 

the same material and learned stone tool production and use from the same individual. 

If procurement is a gendered activity, then we may expect that men and women may 

produce slightly different tools. Men and women also may have access to different 

types of quarries due to their patrilineage and/or other household responsibilities. If 

one sex is dependent on the other to procure the raw material, then the former may 

produce scrapers that are more highly curated than the latter because of lack of access 

to the material. Furthermore, since hide-working is a part-time activity, then we may 

find that stone tools are manufactured and used in different areas and in different 

proportions for men and women, who are otherwise engaged in gender specific 

activities. 

Archaeological Formation Processes 

The largest class of artifacts in the archaeological record is comprised of stone 
and as such our search for understanding human behavior and explanations of cultural 



296 
processes should be expanded to include the processes by which stone artifacts are 

produced, distributed, used, and discarded (Crabtree 1982). The basic model that most 

archaeologists have followed concerning the life cycle (procurement, use, recycling, 

discard, etc.) of material culture and their subsequential effect on the archaeological 

record is based on Schiffer's (1972, 1982) flow charts. Archaeologists tend to view an 

assemblage as a single coherent event, as a "Pompeii premise," rather than 

familiarizing themselves with cultural site formation processes (Schiffer 1972, 1982). 

Hayden (1990) and Hayden, Franco, and Spafford (1996) argued that procurement, 

production, use, and reuse specifically affect stone tool formation processes and hence 

tool morphology. Torrence (1986:61-66) has effectively demonstrated how data from 

the previous studies of Ethiopian hide-workers can provide important insights into 

reconstructing prehistoric systems of production in terms of personal use, exchange, 

division of labor, and craft specialization. However, she states repeatedly the need for 

further studies of the hide-workers and a larger sample size before one can 

discriminate between these competing hypotheses (Torrence 1986:66). 

Procurement 

The cultural and economic factors that influence the decision to use a 

particular raw material for a tool are not well known (Nelson 1991 ; Runnels 1985). In 

addition, despite the high level of interest (Becker 1959; Ericson 1984; Hayden and 

Nelson 1981; Jeske 1989; Shafer and Hester 1983) there have been few attempts to 

systematically analyze quarrying locations (Singer 1984; Torrence 1986). Several 

questions concerning lithic procurement and quarry analysis beckon further research 

such as organization of ownership, rate of production, reduction technology, social 



297 
distance (between materials, knapper, and user), labor, quantity of material rejected, 

spatial layout, and techniques of extraction (pits, vertical shafts, horizontal tunnels, 

hammer-stones, thermal removal). Furthermore, researchers have traditionally 

contrasted the direct access of resources by mobile people resulting in the curation of 

stone tools and the production of more formal tools, with an indirect procurement by 

sedentary peoples resulting in informal tools (Henry 1989; Parry and Kelley 1987). 

The Ethiopian hide-workers use an array of raw material types including obsidian, 

bottle glass, chert, and quartz for producing scrapers. They also exhibit a diaspora of 

procurement strategies: direct access to natural outcrops; long distance recycling of 

stone age artifacts; and bartering/trading with a middle person, thus opening up many 

avenues for future research concerning procurement, resource distance and quality and 

social relations. 

Manufacture 

The reduction of raw material to the finished tool form requires not only 

several stages of manufacture, which may include direct percussion, indirect 

percussion, bipolar, and pressure flaking, but also correspondingly several different 

kinds of fabricators that must be of material different from the stone being worked 

(Crabtree 1982). Within the unifunctional domain of Ethiopian hide- working, there is 

a surprising amount of variability observed in methods of flaking (bipolar, direct 

percussion), fabricators (iron bar, iron ax, stone), debris receptacles (skins, basketry, 

broken pottery fragments, wood bowls), degree of expediency in manufacturing, and 

division of labor, to mention only a few variables. Furthermore, some groups produce 



298 
formal scrapers (Sidama, Gurage, northern Gamo, and Wolayta), while others produce 

more informal scrapers (Konso and southern Gamo). 

Use, recycling, and maintenance 

Ethnographic study of stone tool manufacture provides a living laboratory 
from which to observe usewear and the associated behavioral patterns. There is great 
potential for conducting: 1) comprehensive microwear and residue (including DNA) 
analysis of the end scrapers (Brink 1978:94-1 13; Clark and Kurashina 1981; Hardy 
1996; Hayden 1979:125-131, 1990; Shea 1987; Siegal 1984; Smith and Toth 1990), 
and 2) studies on the uselife of the scrapers, mastics, and handles (Bamforth 1986; 
Clark and Kurashina 1981; Dibble 1987; Gallagher 1977a, 1977b:214-330; Kuhn 
1990). The observation and recording of the life cycle of the hide-worker's scrapers in 
juxtaposition to variation in behavior such as: left handedness verses right handedness, 
differences in socket size and type of hide, the angle at which the hide is bolstered, the 
number of times resharpened and the fabricator used, the direction hide is scraped (to 
name a few) offer keys to unlocking the microwear analysis of a functionally uniform 
tool type. 
Storage and discard 

The ethnographic disbursement of materials is interesting both in terms of 
analyzing the specialized use of space and the formation of the archaeological record 
(Kent 1987). The focus on spatial artifact patterning has also been a source for 
understanding past ideology and symbolic structures (Leone 1984; Donley-Reid 
1990). Ethiopian hide-working practices concerning the methods and location of lithic 
disposal vary greatly from: 1) primary refuse inside specialized workshops; 2) 



299 
secondary refuse so that lithic materials are first collected and stored in a container 

and then discarded away from their primary place of use or removal; and 3) defacto 

refuse or the accidental discard of lithics. In addition, hide-workers have a wide 

variety of locations where they deposit their lithic materials including: inside the 

compound, outside the compound, along fences, in fields, in hearths, in rodent or other 

natural holes, in human-made holes or ditches, which lends itself to a wide range of 

studies relating to social organization and site structure. 

Several studies have also examined the affects of trampling on stone tools after 

their discard to determine the rate of dispersal, breakage, and edge damage to the tools 

(Gifford-Gonzales et al. 1985). Some studies suggest that the effects of trampling 

only randomly damage the edge and would not be confused with use-damage 

(Tringham et al. 1974: 192). Others state that patterned edge damage occurs on 

obsidian and flint artifacts submitted to trampling (Flenniken and Haggarty 1979; 

McBrearty et al. 1998). Longitudinal studies of ethnographic stone tool discard piles 

should be able to provide us with further insights concerning postdepositional 

dispersal and edge damage. 

In southern Ethiopia, we know of many other ethnic groups, who still use stone 

tools and, possibly, many more have yet to be identified. There are a large number of 

issues to be explored connecting people to their stone tools including social and 

economic organization, gender, site formation, hafting, procurement, manufacture, 

use, recycling, and discard. Thus, there is enormous potential for future research 

answering archaeological questions pertaining to lithic technology. 



300 
Conclusion 

Ethnoarchaeology is a valuable tool for drawing out the meanings behind stone 
tool variation. This study of the Gamo hide-working materials and practices 
importantly outlined how variation in stone tool morphology exposes the 
heterogeneous nature of culture incorporating both functional and stylistic aspects 
within a single culture. To understand stone tool morphological differences in terms 
of style or function, the archaeologist needs to enlist a methodology based on scales of 
analysis. This requires a vast knowledge concerning the environmental resources and 
the cultural remains on a multicontextual scale including regional, 
subregional/intersite, site, and local/intrasite levels. This could easily span the career 
of a single researcher if not several generations of researchers. I hope that future 
archaeologists and ethnoarchaeologists will test this model concerning social group 
membership, space, and scraper morphology to determine its applicability in other 
societies. 



APPENDIX A 
KINSHIP CHARTS 




Figure A- 1 : Diagram of Mogesa kinship relationships of Buta, Tesfy, and Goa. 
The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



301 



302 




Figure A-2: Diagram of Mogesa kinship relationships of Mokano, Mola, Yeka, and 
Yonja. The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 












303 




MADASA 
/ MAZA \ 



CHURGO T ^ AS ° ) /V (YAMBABEJ ^YaW 
ZW^^~ X/ GABRE V ^L X/GODANa\V D ^A ^ 



A" 

MARDOS 
XCHURGOV 



Figure A-3: Diagram of Amure kinship relationships of Gabre, Gamana, Galche, and 
Mardos. The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



















304 
















GOQDARA 
/ / G° BA \ 




Figure A-4: Diagram of Amure kinship relationships of Chamo and Hagay. The darker 
triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



305 




Figure A-5: Diagram of Amure kinship relationships of Hanicha, Osha, and Bedala. 
The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



306 




WOGAYSA (UNKNOWN) 
/ LpKAY \ 



/ \ / \=manewkay/ V 

GAGA DARSA V ON TO J GARBO I NASA 
.GALCHO^iGALCHOW ^- ^/GALCHOW _ y 



= BATTA^l 



Figure A-6: Diagram of Patela kinship relationships of Gaga, Darsa, Garbo, Garcho, 
Uma, and Garafay. The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



307 




Figure A-7: Diagram of Patela kinship relationships of Tsoma. The darker triangles 
represent living hide-worker, who I studied. 



308 




Figure A-8: Diagram of Patela kinship relationships of Gimay, Tina, and Tinko. The 
darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



309 




WOqAYSA 




OSOMAY 
/ GELO \V 



/ \ /shindary\ *L,\=( umay j XasaN 
/arka\L hativ y ,unkay a V yogo / frvrftl 
AngeloV ^ A ^ V /angeiA V ^y /baljaj 



fABAT/ 
ARKA 



CATANAY 
GAGA 



Figure A-9: Diagram of Patela kinship relationships of Arka, Abata, Unkay, and Basa. 
The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



310 




Figure A-10: Diagram of Eeyahoo kinship relationships of Amaylo, Awesto, and Anko. 
The darker triangles represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 



/ GXSHQ \ 





Figure A-l 1 : Diagram of Eeyahoo kinship relationships of Arba. The darker triangles 
represent living hide-workers, who I studied. 






APPENDIX B 
ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA 



Table B-l: The number of villages in each dere with members belonging to each clan 
and moiety. 



Moiety 


Clan Name 


m 

I 
E 

o 

35 


o 
"o 

J3 





o 

M 
O 

a 


■ 

N 

E 

o 

a 


o 
on 

o 


■ 

1 
N 


Dogala 


Amara 


3 


1 






4 


6 


Dogala 


Bola 






10 


2 


11 


1 


Dogala 


Bolosa 










3 




Dogala 


Damota 


3 


1 




1 


6 




Dogala 


Dokama 










1 




Dogala 


Dogala 


2 












Dogala 


Gadda 


1 












Dogala 


Goodara 


1 








5 




Dogala 


Gorana 








1 






Dogala 


Manga 














Dogala 


Maagata 


5 






1 






Dogala 


Maka 


1 




4 


1 


1 




Dogala 


Masha 






3 




9 


1 


Dogala 


Wogela 










1 




Dogala 


Zamanay 










2 




Dogala 


Zutuma 


8 






5 


12 


7 


DOGALA 


Total 


24 


2 


17 


11 


67 


15 


Mala 


Boradamala 


4 








3 




Mala 


Gezemala 


7 


1 


1 


4 


20 


12 


Mala 


Gowmala 






4 


1 


2 




Mala 


Dalomala 










1 


3 


Mala 


Diamala 










1 




Mala 


Ushkalmala 






1 








Mala 


Washomala 






1 








MALA 


TOTAL 


11 


1 


8 


5 


27 


15 



311 






312 

Table B-2: Hide-workers marriage patterns, differences between wife's and mother's 
clan name and village. Figure 3-3 for locations of villages/subdistricts. 



Name 


1 

U 


n 


c 

a 

at 

~u 
<u 
J= 

*j 
o 


Wife's village 

and 

subdistrict 


Mother's 
Village and 
subdistrict 


Hanicha 


Maagata 


Masha 


? 


Leesha 
Guyla 


? 


Bedala 


Maagata 


Boradamala 


? 


Ezo Gulay 
Tzabo 


? 


Okoto 


Maagata 


Gezemala 


Masha 


Kuche 


Leesha 
Guyla 


Osha 


Maagata 


Boradamala 


Masha 


Borada 


Leesha 
Guyla 


Gabre 


Maagata 


Zutuma 


Amare 


Chileshe 
Shara 


Meesheda 
Guyesa 


Gamana 


Maagata 


Zutuma 


Zutuma 


Kucha 


Chileshe 
Shara 


Galche 


Maagata 


Zutuma 


? 


Leesha 
Guyla 


Birbir 


Mardos 


Maagata 


X 


Masha 


X 


Leesha 
Guyla 


Chamo 


Maagata 


X 


Gezemala 


X 


Leesha Mesa 


Hagay 


Maagata 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Ezo Kogo 


Leesha Mesa 


Buta 


Gezemala 


Maka 


Maagata 


Moraday 


Chileshe 
Dembe 


Tesfy 


Gezemala 


Zutuma 


Maka 


Birbir 


Moraday 


Goa 


Gezemala 


Maagata 


Maka 


Moraday 


Moraday 


Mokono 


Gezemala 


Maagata 


Gezemala 


Moraday 


Moraday 


Mola 


Gezemala 


Zutuma 


Maagata 


Birbir 


Moraday 


Yota 


Gezemala 


Zutuma 


Gowmala 


Birbir 


B arena 
Waya 


Yeka 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


Gowmala 


B arena 
Waya 


B arena 

Waya 


Yonja 


Gezemala 


Amare 


Zutuma 


Mulato 
Pitay 


Birbir 















Table B-2 continued. 



313 



Arba 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 




Ezo Zita 


Eeyahoo 
Shongalay 


Amaylo 


Bolosa 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


Zala 
B arena 


Ezo Shasha 


Awesto 


Bolosa 


Goodara 


Gezemala 


Zala 
B arena 


Ezo Shasha 


Gimay 


Zutuma 


Dalomalo 


? 


Ezo Olay 


Tsela Ochollo 


Tina 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Dalomalo 


Ezo Tula 


Ezo Olay 


Tinko 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Dalomalo 


Ezo 

Shasha 


Ezo Olay 


Unkay 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


Ezo 


Tsela Ochollo 


Arka 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


Ezo 
Shasha 


Tsela Ochollo 


Abata 


Zutuma 


Amara 


Gezemala 


Ezo Olay 


Ezo Shasha 


Basa 


Zutuma 


X 


Gezemala 


X 


Kucha 


Garcho 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


? 


Leesha 
Meesheda 


Garafay 


Zutuma 


X 


Gezemala 


X 


Tsela Ochollo 


Uma 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


Ezo 


Tsela Ochollo 


Gaga 


Zutuma 


X 


Gezemala 


X 


Ezo Tula 


Garbo 


Zutuma 


Gezemala 


Gezemala 


Dita 


Ezo Tula 



314 

Table B-3: Listing of the northern Gamo tutuma-users and the name of the subdistrict 
and district from which they originated. 



Name 

(No. of 
handles) 


Living in 


From 


Father From 


Tsara Tsada 
(burned in fire) 


Barena Zala 


Kogo-Ezo Kogo 
Central region 


" 


Kosha Quira 
(1) 


Barena Zala 


Kogo-Ezo Gulay 
Central region 




Delasa Deedano 

(1) 


Barena Zala 


Kogo-Ezo Tula 
Central region 


_ 


Hamalay Haro 
(none) 


Barena Zala 


Doko-Doko Zolo 
Central region 


" 


Arba Yeaboo 
(2) 


Shongalay 


Kogo-Ezo Gulay 
Central region 


" 


Amaylo Anko 
(2) 


Shongalay 


Kogo-Ezo Waro 
Central region 


" 


Awesto Anko 
(1) 


Shongalay 


Kogo-Ezo Waro 
Central region 


■ 


Etolo Balgo 
(none) 


Shongalay 


Zada-Leesha 
Central region 


■ 


Yazah Bodeetay 

(1) 


Barena Way a 


Borada-Barena 
Waya 


Doko 
Central region 


Milkana Hare 

(2) 


Chileshe Alo 


Borada-Chileshe 
Alo 


7 


Meecha Chama 
(1) 


Goocho Doobana 


Borada-Goocho 
Doobana 


Chileshe 
Borada? 



315 

Table B-4: Listing of the elder Central Gamo hide-workers, who still own zucano 
handles. 



Individual 


Residence 


Number of 
Zucano handles 


Heraba Haylo 


Ezo Olay Kogo 


1 (not measured) 


Tsada Chalgay 


Ezo Shasha Kogo 


1 


Somany Soto 


Ezo Otay Kogo 


3 


Masgay Wachay 


Tsula Saytay Kogo 


1 



Table B-5: Listing of the Central Gamo zucano-users and their relationship to 
individuals from the northern Gamo region, from whom they obtain their handle 
resources. 



Name 


Living in 


Wife From 


Other 


Boundesa 
Burka 


Delbensa Kasha 


Cortcha 
Cheri 's sister 




Dunga 
Dumase 


Leesha Guyla 




Mother from Ochollo 


Battcho Balgo 


Leesha Meza 




Gets from Banja 


Bayene Bache 


Leesha Meza 




Gets from Banja 


Corcha Cheri 


Leesha Boudela 




Gets from Curay 


Curay Duka 


Leesha Boudela 


Mulato Zefene 




Banja Battay 


Leesha Boudela 


From Ochollo 





316 



Table B-6: Listing 
lowland region, as 



of hide-workers from the highland areas, who married women from 
it influences handle type. 



Name & 
Handle 


Location 


Wife 
From 


Father-in-laws 
occupation 


Goa Buta 
zucano 


Shongalay 
Mogesa 


Moraday 


Hide-worker 


Mokano Ganta 
zucano 


Shongalay 
Mogesa 


Moraday 


Hide-worker 


Yeka Churtulo 
zucano 


Shongalay 
Mogesa 


Moraday 


Hide-worker 


Yonja Yota 
zucano 


Shongalay 
Mogesa 


Mulato Pitay 


Hide-worker 


Mudela Mugge 
tutuma 


Dorze Hirpo 


Ochollo Chanco 


Fa died, brothers make 
chairs no scraping 


Gerche Gootay 
tutuma 


Dorze Hirpo 


Ochollo 
Dencare 


Fa died, brothers make 
chairs no scraping 


Ara Arayno 
tutuma 


Tsula Saytay 


Gema 


Grindstone maker 


Tojary Tolo 
tutuma 


Tsula 
Mafuna-zolo 


Uma Lante 


Grindstone 
maker 


Dozay Quira 
tutuma 


Ezo Gulay 
Tzabo 


Chileshe 

Dembe 

Amure 


Iron worker 


Wombaro Salo 
tutuma 


Doko Mesho 


Ergesa Wozo 


moved from Mangesa 
Iramo 


Circa Shalfa 
tutuma 


Ezo Shasha 


B arena Way a 


Father Bodeteey uses 
tutuma from Doko 


Otollo Delbicha 
tutuma 


Ergesa Isanda 


Kucha 


unknown 



Table B-7: Comparison of the different Gamo clans 
scrapers in my assemblage from each village. 



317 
and the number of unused 



Village 
(handle type) 


Maagata 

(n=245) 


Damota 

(n=72) 


Gezemala 
(n=249) 


Zutuma 
(n=296) 


Bolosa 
(n=66) 


Amure 
(zucano) 


243 














Afilaketsa 
(zucano) 





39 











Dubana 

(zucano) 











1 





Daroba 

(zucano) 


1 














Kolba 

(zucano) 











1 





Tsaday 
(zucano) 











1 





Gagolay 
(zucano) 








1 








Mogesa 
(zucano) 








214 








Zefene 
(zucano) 








1 








Zagay 
(zucano) 





1 











Eeyahoo 
(tutuma) 








33 





45 


Saytay 
(tutuma) 











1 





Kodo 
(tutuma) 














19 


Pango 

(tutuma) 





32 











Patala 

(tutuma) 











292 





Dubana 
(tutuma) 


1 
























318 

Table B-8: Comparison of the different Gamo clans and the number of used-up 
scrapers from each lineages/villages. 



Village 
(Handle Type) 


Maagata 

(n=218) 


Damota 

(n= 53) 


Gezemala 

(n= 352) 


Zutuma 

(n=239) 


Bolosa 
(n=142) 


Amure 

(zucano) 


216 














Afilaketsa 
(zucano) 





25 











Dubana 
(zucano) 


1 








5 





Daroba 

(zucano) 


1 














Tsaday 
(zucano) 











2 





Gagolay 

(zucano) 








1 








Mogesa 
(zucano) 








286 








Zefene 
(zucano) 








1 








Zagay 
(zucano) 





3 











Cancho 
(zucano) 








1 








Mandita 
(zucano) 











5 





Eeyahoo 

(tutuma) 








55 





134 


Saytay 
(tutuma) 











2 





Kodo (tutuma) 











3 


8 


Pango 

(tutuma) 





23 











Patela (tutuma) 











217 





Goydana (tutuma) 





2 











Shama (tutuma) 








1 








Telo (tutuma) 








3 








Hadara (tutuma) 








1 








Lyo (tutuma) 








3 








Borchay (tutuma) 











5 












APPENDIX C 
STATISTICS AND HANDLE AND SCRAPER DATA 

T-test (the letters in column 2 refer to the letters in column 1) 


B 


Observation 1 


C 


Observation 2 


D 


Variance 1 


E 


Variance 2 


F 


Meanl 


G 


Mean2 


H 


B-lxDxD 


I 


C-lxEXE 


J 


H+I 


K 


B+C-2 


L 


J/K 


M 


Square root L 


N 


F-G 





SQRT (1/B+l/Q 


P 


MxO 


Q 


N/P 


R 


B2+C2-2 

Confidence level at 0.05 


Chi-square Test 

(observed-expected) (observed-expected) + expected 

Confidence level at 0.05 

Analysis of Co- variance—Standard Deviation Comparisons 
Standard deviations Mean x 100 

319 



320 

Table C-l: Comparison of unused and used-up scrapers mean measurements and t-test 
results (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean Measurement 
in centimeters 


Unused n= 811 
(variance) 


Used-up n= 872 
(variance) 


T-test Results 
T-critical =1.96 


Medial Breadth 


2.4 
(0.26) 


2.4 
(0.18) 


1.8 


Maximum Length 


3.4 

(0.8) 


2.76 
(0.39) 


21.4 


Proximal Thickness 


1.1 
(0.16) 


1.1 
(0.1) 





Distal Thickness 


0.4 
(0.09) 


0.85 
(0.02) 


159.34 


Breadth/Length 
Ratio 


0.7 
(0.04) 


0.9 
(0.04) 


81.99 


DThickness/Lengthe 
ngth Ratio 


0.1 
(0) 


0.32 
(0.02) 


299.01 


Weight 


11 

(44.5) 


8.6 
(18.98) 


1.2 


Retouch Length 


0.2 
(0.03) 


0.94 
(0.11) 


175.22 


Distal Edge Angle 


50 
(11.74) 


67.21 
(159.9) 


2.47 



Table C-2: Chert and obsidian unused scrapers mean measurements and t-test results 
(bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean Measurements 
in centimeters 


Chert 

n = 778 

(variance) 


Obsidian 

n=62 
(variance) 


T-test Results 
T-critical =1.96 


Medial Breadth 


2.43 (0.25) 


2.36 (0.36) 


1.74 


Maximum Length 


3.05 (0.61) 


3.44 (0.8) 


3.84 


Proximal Thickness 


1.14 (0.16) 


1 (0.14) 


6.68 


Distal Thickness 


0.35 (0.02) 


0.35 (0.03) 





Breadth/Length Ratio 


0.74 (0.04) 


0.8 (0.05) 


11.11 


DT/Length Ratio 


0.11 (0) 


0.11 (0) 





Weight 


10.8 (45) 


7.7 (25) 


0.5 


Retouch Length 


0.24 (0.04) 


0.23 (0.03) 


1.92 


Distal Edge Angle 


50.6(111) 


48.63 (113) 


0.13 









321 



Table C-3: Chert and obsidian used-up scrapers mean measurements and t-test 
results (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean 

Measurements 
in centimeters 


Chert n= 778 
(variance) 


Obsidian n=88 
(variance) 


T-test Results 
T-critical =1.96 


Medial Breadth 


2.4 
(0.18) 


2.4 
(0.18) 





Maximum Length 


2.76 
(0.39) 


2.76 
(0.37) 





Proximal Thickness 


1.1 
(0.1) 


1.1 

(0.11) 





Distal Thickness 


0.86 
(0.09) 


0.84 
(0.11) 


1.92 


Breadth/Length 
Ratio 


0.89 
(0.44) 


0.93 
(0.05) 


0.8 


DT/Length Ratio 


0.32 
(0.02) 


0.32 
(0.02) 





Weight 


8.68 

(19) 


7.9 
(12.1) 


0.36 


Retouch Length 


0.94 
(0.12) 


0.95 
(0.13) 


0.73 


Distal Edge Angle 


67 
(160) 


67 

(158) 






322 



Table C-4: Used-up scrapers for scraping verses chopping comparison of mean 
measurements and t-test results (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence 
level). 



Mean 

Measurements 
in centimeters 


Scrape Only 

n=30 

(variance) 


Scrape & Chop 

n=64 

(variance) 


T-test Results 

T-critical 

=2.00 


Medial Breadth 


2.43 
(0.12) 


2.4 
(0.13) 


1.06 


Maximum Length 


2.7 
(0.34) 


2.64 
(0.23) 


1.67 


Proximal Thickness 


1.1 

(0.09) 


1.1 

(0.09) 





Distal Thickness 


0.8 
(0.06) 


0.87 
(0.08) 


4.25 


Breadth/Length 
Ratio 


0.93 

(0.04) 


1 

(0.05) 


2.08 


Distal Thickness 
/Length Ratio 


0.3 
(0.01) 


0.34 

(0.02) 


10.34 


Weight 


9 

(17.8) 


8.11 
(10.89) 


0.30 


Retouch Length 


0.8 
(0.08) 


0.95 
(0.09) 


5.71 


Distal Edge Angle 


66 

(143.8) 


63.6 
(66) 


0.1 



Table C-5: Comparison of highland and lowland hides (bolded cells are significant at 
the 0.05 confidence level. 



Measurement 


Highland 
Mean mm 
(variance) 


Lowland 
Mean mm 
(variance) 


T-Test 
Results 
T-critical 2.056 


Width 


140.5 (826) 


131.8(76.6) 


0.3 


Length 


174.17(391) 


168.4 (230) 


0.4 


Thickness 


2.7(0.19) 


3.96 (0.92) 


5.2 



323 



Table C-6: Used-up scrapers for lowland and highland hides mean measurement and t- 
test results (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean 

Measurement 
in centimeters 


Lowland 

n=57 
(variance) 


Highland 

n=54 
(variance) 


T-test Results 

T-critical 

=1.96 


Breadth 


2.4 (0.8) 


2.5(0.14) 


4.65 


Maximum Length 


2.68 (0.33) 


2.74(0.21) 


1.13 


Distal Thickness 


0.95 (0.07) 


0.8 (0.09) 


9.17 


Proximal Thickness 


1.13(0.08) 


1.06(0.08) 





DT/Length Ratio 


0.3 (0.02) 


0.3(0.01) 





Weight 


8.73(11.7) 


8.6(13.5) 


0.07 


Retouch Length 


1 (0.08) 


0.9 (0.11) 


5.4 


Distal Edge Angle 


65.9 (0.9) 


63.5 (166) 


0.08 



Table C-7: Unused scrapers hafted inzucano andtutuma handles comparison of mean 
measurement and t-test results (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence 
level). 



Mean 

Measurement in 
centimeters 


Zucano 

n=476 

(variance) 


Tutuma 

n=466 

(variance) 


T-test Results 

T-critical 

= 2.00 


Medial Breadth 


2.53 
(0.17) 


2.52 
(0.62) 


0.34 


Maximum Length 


3.93 
(0.47) 


3.04 
(0.89) 


19.23 


Proximal Thickness 


1.25 
(0.11) 


1.04 
(0.18) 


21.66 


Distal Thickness 


0.39 
(0.02) 


2.32 
(0.55) 


76.51 


Breadth/Length 
Ratio 


0.66 

(0.12) 


0.86 
(0.07) 


31.75 


DThickness/Length 
ength Ratio 


0.1 

(0) 


0.12 
(0) 


25.36 


Weight 


13.27 
(34.4) 


10.06 
(105.34) 


0.63 


Retouch Length 


0.31 
(0.03) 


0.18 
(0.04) 


56.51 


Distal Edge Angle 


52.01 

(91.17) 


49.29 
(143.01) 


0.34 



324 



Table C-8: Used-up scrapers hafted inzucano and tutuma handles comparison of mean 
measurement and t-test results (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence 
level). 



Mean 

Measurements in 
centimeters 


Zucano 

n=566 

(variance) 


Tutuma 

n=489 

(variance) 


T-test Results 
T-critical = 2.00 


Medial Breadth 


2.45 
(0.13) 


2.39 
(0.25) 


4.98 


Maximum Length 


2.89 
(0.38) 


2.71 
(0.49) 


6.47 


Proximal Thickness 


1.15 
(0.08) 


1.08 
(0.12) 


11.28 


Distal Thickness 


0.92 
(0.09) 


0.79 
(0.1) 


22.22 


Breadth/Length 
Ratio 


0.88 
(0.04) 


0.92 
(0.05) 


11.69 


DThickness/Length 
ength Ratio 


0.33 
(0.02) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


25.36 


Weight 


9.36 

(16.47) 


8.58 
(31.5) 


0.51 


Retouch Length 


1 
(0.1) 


1.16 
(0.1) 


25.92 


Distal Edge Angle 


67.89 
(149) 


65.97 
(168.34) 


0.19 



Table C-9: Chi-square test of unused zucano and tutuma scrapers for dorsal scar 
patterns. 





Tutuma Scrapers No. 


Zucano Scrapers No. 


Radial 


155 


348 


503 


Other types 


206 


100 


306 




361 


448 


809 




Observed 


Expected 


(o-e) 2 /e 




155 


224.5 


21.5 




206 


136.5 


35.4 




348 


123.5 


408.1 




100 


169.5 


28.5 








493.5 


2 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level 


Significane at 0.05 is 5.99 




Since 493. 5 is greater than 5.99 than the differences are significant. 



325 



Table C-10: Chi-square test of unused tutuma and zucano scrapers for planforms. 





Tutuma 
Scraper No. 


Zucano Scraper No. 


Short 
Quadrilateral 


286 


207 


493 


Other types 


14 


240 


254 




300 


447 


757 




























Observed 


Expected 


(o-e) 2 /e 




155 


195.4 


8.35 




206 


477.6 


154.45 




348 


104.6 


566.38 




100 


149.4 


16.33 








745.52 


2 degrees of 
freedom at 0.05 
level 








significance level 
at 0.05 is 5.99 








Since 745. 49 is greater than 5.99 than the differences are significant! 



Table C- 1 1 : Chi-square test of unused tutuma and zucano scrapers for cross-sections. 





Tutuma Scraper 
No. 


Zucano Scraper No. 


Lenticular 


163 


122 


285 


Plano-convex 


61 


168 


229 




224 


290 


514 




























Observed 


Expected 


(o-e) 2 /e 




163 


124.2 


12.12 




122 


160.8 


9.36 




61 


99.2 


14.71 




168 


129.8 


11.24 








47.44 


2 degrees of freedom at 0.05 level 




significance level at 0.05 is 5.99 






Since 47.4 is greater than 5.99 than the differences are significant! 



326 



Table C-12: Chi-square test of unused tutuma and zucano for platform types. 





Tutuma Scraper 
Number 


Zucano Scraper 
Number 


Absent 


288 


369 


657 


Other types 


77 


69 


146 




365 


438 


803 












Observed 


Expected 


(o-e) 2 /e 




288 


298.6 


0.37628935 




369 


358.4 


0.31350446 




77 


66.4 


1.69216867 




69 


79.6 


1.41155779 








3.79352 


2 degrees of freedom 
at0.05 level 


Significan level at 
0.05 is 5.99 






Since 3.79 is not greater than 5.99 than the differences are NOT 
significant! 



Table C-13: Dere t-test of zucano sockets breadth/height ratio (bolded cells are 
significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Dere 
Comparisons 


Meanl cm 
(variance) 


Mean2 cm 
(variance) 


T-test Results 
T-critical = 2.00 


Borada (n=116) & 
Zada (n=13) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


1.25 
(0.04) 


2.91 


Borada (n=116) & 
Doko (n=3) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


1.47 
(0.25) 


3.15 


Borada (n=l 16) & 
Kogo(n=10) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


1.28 
(0.06) 


1.26 


Borada (n=116) & 
Ochollo (n=5) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


1.39 
(0.03) 


2.1 


Zada (n=13) & 
Doko (n=3) 


1.25 
(0.04) 


1.47 
(0.25) 


3.29 


Zada(n=13)& 
Kogo(n=10) 


1.25 
(0.5) 


1.28 
(0.06) 


1.53 


Zada (n=13) & 
Ochollo (n=3) 


1.25 
(0.04) 


1.39 
(0.03) 


6.63 


Doko (n=3) & 
Kogo (n=10) 


1.47 
(0.25) 


1.28 
(0.06) 


2.35 


Doko (n=3) & 
Ochollo (n=5) 


1.47 
(0.25) 


1.39 
(0.03) 


0.74 


Kogo (n=10) & 
Ochollo (n=5) 


1.25 
(0.06) 


1.39 
(0.03) 


3.75 



327 



Table C-14: Dere t-test for tutuma sockets breadth/height ratio (bolded cells are 
significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Dere Comparisons 


Meanl 

cm 

(variance) 


Mean2 

cm 

(variance) 


T-test Results 
T-critical = 2.00 


Borada (n=10) & 
Zada (n=44) 


2.84 
(0.59) 


4.43 
(5.18) 


0.96 


Borada (n=10) & 
Doko (n=24) 


2.84 
(0.59 


3.30 
(4.50) 


0.32 


Borada (n=10) & 
Dorze (n=16) 


2.84 
(0.59) 


4.90 
(4.06) 


1.58 


Borada (n=10) & 
Kogo (n=52) 


2.84 
(0.59) 


2.97 
(1.87) 


0.23 


Borada (n=10) & 
Bonke (n=7) 


2.84 
(0.59) 


12.10 
(38.82) 


0.77 


Zada (n=44) & 
Doko (n=24) 


4.43 
(5.18) 


3.30 
(4.50) 


0.89 


Zada (n=44) & 
Dorze (n=16) 


4.43 
(5.18) 


4.90 
(4.06) 


0.33 


Zada (n=44) & 
Kogo (n=52) 


4.43 
(5.18) 


2.97 
(1.87) 


1.88 


Zada (n=44) & 
Bonke (n=7) 


4.43 
(5.18) 


12.10 
(38.82) 


1.31 


Doko (n=24) & 
Dorze (n=16) 


3.30 
(4.50) 


4.90 
(4.06) 


1.14 


Doko (n=24) & 
Kogo (n=52) 


3.30 
(4.50) 


2.97 
(1.87) 


0.44 


Doko (n=24) & 
Bonke (n=7) 


3.30 
(4.50) 


12.10 
(38.82) 


1.13 


Dorze(n=16)& 
Kogo (n=52) 


4.90 
(4.06) 


2.97 
(1.87) 


2.64 


Dorze (n=16) & 
Bonke (n=7) 


4.90 
(4.06) 


12.10 
(38.82) 


0.76 


Kogo (n=52) & 
Bonke (n=7) 


2.97 
(1.87) 


12.10 
(38.82) 


1.78 



328 



Table C-15: Dere mean morphological measurements of unused scrapers. 



Dere 


Breadth 
cm 


Length 
cm 


Proximal 

Thickness 

cm 


Distal 

Thickness 

cm 


Breadth/ 
Length 


Thickness/ 
Length 


Edge 
Angle 


— < 

-S 

'33 


Retouch 
Length 


Bonke (n=27) 


3.47 


3.16 


1.15 


0.26 


1.15 


0.08 


47.7 


14.1 


0.06 


Kogo (n=30) 


2.95 


4.15 


1.11 


0.45 


0.74 


0.12 


51.4 


28.3 


0.33 


Dorze (n=3 1 ) 


3.69 


4.66 


1.56 


0.51 


0.82 


0.12 


46.9 


6.6 


0.38 


Zada (n=292) 


2.24 


2.7 


0.96 


0.31 


0.85 


0.13 


52.7 


17.7 


0.15 


Borada 
tutuma(n=S2) 


2.59 


3.16 


1.13 


0.34 


0.87 


0.11 


55.2 


11.1 


0.21 


Borada zucano 
(n=473) 


2.53 


3.93 


1.25 


0.39 


0.65 


0.10 


51.2 


13.3 


0.31 


Ochollo (n=40) 


2.67 


4.04 


1.26 


- 


0.69 


0.36 


62.5 


13.8 


- 



Table C-16: Dere t-test results for unused scrapers (T-critical is 1.96, bolded cells are 
significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Dere 


J3 

S 

I 

E 

m 


S 

C 


03 aj 

£ S 

•3 «* 
P '- 


■ 
e 

3 3 


3 

m S 

1 21° 

QQ - 


"35 

■ 

S JG 
M ** 

•s c 


v — 

u < 


DC 


o 5> 

— c 

OS - 


Bonke (n=27) 
& Kogo 
(n=30) 


0.92 


6.58 


26.12 


12.9 


10.92 


26.6 


0.12 


0.32 


12.7 


Bonke (n=27) 
&Zada 

(n=292) 


14.53 


5.66 


29.78 


12.82 


21.90 


29.78 


0.04 


1.01 


15.48 


Bonke (n=27) 
& Dorze 
(n=31) 


2.63 


5.13 


85.94 


31.39 


13.92 


86.93 


0.12 


0.05 


27.55 


Bonke (n=27) 
& Borada T 

(n=82) 


6.65 


0.01 


51.08 


19.93 


10.75 


51.07 


0.23 


0.18 


25.44 


Bonke (n=27) 
& Ochollo 
(n=40) 


4.81 


5.00 


13.37 




16.75 


13.37 


0.41 


0.02 




Bonke (n=27) 
& Borada Z 

(n=473) 


17.19 


8.33 


42.07 


33.51 


63.04 


42.06 


0.23 


0.11 


43.12 



329 



Table C-16 continued. 



Kogo (n=30) 

&Zada 

(n=292) 


18.73 


19.64 


6.06 


29.27 


4.15 


6.06 


0.22 


1.60 


24.74 


Kogo (n=30) 
& Dorze 
(n=31) 


4.22 


1.89 


1.70 


3.19 


8.61 


1.97 


0.03 


0.15 


1.99 


Kogo (n=30) 
& Borada T 

(n=82) 


9.26 


8.56 


3.55 


14.71 


2.97 


3.5 


0.12 


0.63 


11.13 


Kogo (n=30) 
& Ochollo 
(n=40) 


6.97 


2.57 


12.43 




10.93 


12.4 


0.36 


0.42 




Kogo (n=30) 
& Borada Z 

(n=473) 


23.63 


7.21 


37.07 


20.63 


48.68 


37.06 


0.03 


1.30 


8.7 


Zada (n=292) 
& Dorze 


10.80 


15.77 


7.99 


35.06 


12.25 


7.98 


0.26 


0.54 


29.4 


Zada (n=292) 
& Borada T 

(n=82) 


8.02 


7.65 


14.11 


12.0 


1.96 


14.11 


0.55 


0.82 


16.0 


Zada (n=292) 
& Ochollo 
(n=40) 


7.70 


16.31 


37.34 




19.20 


37.33 


0.81 


1.39 




Zada (n=292) 
& Borada Z 
(n=473) 


16.00 


36.74 


72.80 


53.7 


81.54 


72.33 


0.69 


2.73 


71.69 


Dorze (n=3 1 ) 
& Borada T 

(n=82) 


3.94 


6.21 


1.98 


22.55 


7.36 


1.97 


0.08 


0.17 


15.59 


Dorze (n=3 1 ) 
& Ochollo 

(n=40) 


2.84 


0.50 


12.76 




4.61 


12.75 


0.27 


0.07 




Dorze (n=3 1 ) 
& Borada Z 

(n=473) 


11.12 


2.30 


42.00 


15.61 


28.48 


42 


0.04 


0.27 


3.41 


Borada T 
(n=82) & 
Ochollo 
(n=40) 


1.07 


6.17 


20.95 




10.80 


20.95 


0.25 


0.22 




Borada T 
(n=82) & 
Borada Z 
(n=473) 


2.26 


12.73 


54.67 


20.9 


45.32 


54.66 


0.26 


0.42 


27.8 



330 



Table C-17: Dere mean morphological measurements for used-up scrapers. 



Dere 


Breadth 
cm 


Length 
cm 


Proximal 

Thickness 

cm 


Distal 

Thickness 

cm 


Breadth/L 
ength 


Thickness 
/Length 


Edge 
Angle 


— ■> 

JS 
zt. 


Retouch 
Length 


Bonke (n=29) 


2.58 


2.73 


1.12 


0.97 


0.97 


0.36 


70.8 


9.2 


1.19 


Kogo (n=32) 


2.76 


3.48 


1.24 


0.88 


0.81 


0.26 


66.8 


15.1 


1.00 


Zada (n=223) 


2.29 


2.43 


1.04 


0.80 


0.97 


0.34 


68.2 


6.9 


0.86 


Dorze (n=24) 


2.11 


2.56 


1.01 


0.71 


0.83 


0.28 


63.0 


6.5 


0.75 


Borada 

tutuma(n= 1 87) 


2.47 


2.97 


1.10 


0.74 


0.87 


0.26 


62.5 


9.8 


0.82 


Borada zucano 
(n=565) 


2.45 


2.88 


1.15 


0.92 


0.88 


0.33 


67.9 


9.3 


1.01 


Ochollo 

(n=22) 


2.45 


2.9 


1.19 


- 


0.88 


0.42 


65.5 


8.7 


- 



Table C-18: Dere t-test results for comparison of used-up scrapers (T-critical is 1.96, 
bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Deres 


Breadth 
cm 


Length 
cm 


Proximal 

Thickness 

cm 


Distal 

Thickness 

cm 


Breadth/L 
ength cm 


Thickness/ 
Length cm 


Edge 
Angle 


JS 
W) 

5 


Retouch 
cm 


Bonke (n=29) & 
Kogo (n=32) 


3.99 


9.06 


5.8 


3.34 


23.71 


41.70 


0.1 


0.5 


6.03 


Bonke (n=29) & 
Zada (n=223) 


8.42 


4.70 


4.86 


8.78 


4.02 


5.86 


0.1 


0.8 


13.06 


Bonke (n=29) & 
Dorze (n=24) 


12.54 


2.29 


7.27 


14.77 


32.33 


31.82 


0.2 


0.8 


17.53 


Bonke (n=29) & 
Borada T 

(n=187) 


1.98 


2.44 


0.62 


11.78 


13.41 


41.31 


0.2 


0.1 


14.5 


Bonke (n=29) & 
Ochollo (n=22) 


5.06 


1.96 


2.83 


- 


27.12 


14.82 


0.1 


0.2 


- 


Bonke (n=29) & 
Borada Z 
(n=565) 


5.54 


2.26 


2.08 


2.93 


14.96 


11.35 


0.1 


0.0 


9.04 


Kogo (n=32) & 
Zada (n=223) 


12.71 


16.4 

7 


11.57 


4.0 


20.14 


23.31 


0.1 


1.7 


5.63 


Kogo (n=32) & 
Dorze (n=24) 


11.65 


12.4 
6 


10.32 


6.17 


8.86 


11.13 


0.1 


0.7 


8.1 



Table C- 18 continued. 



331 



Kogo (n=32) 
& Borada T 
(n=187) 


5.05 


5.37 


4.277 


6.9 


5.52 


0.29 


0.1 


0.6 


7.13 


Kogo (n=32) 
& Ochollo 
(n=22) 


6.35 


6.89 


1.66 




10.58 


58.62 


0.0 


0.5 




Kogo (n=32) 
& Borada Z 
(n=565) 


12.4 
4 


8.71 


6.09 


2.37 


9.53 


26.48 


0.0 


1.5 


0.53 


Zada (n=223) 
& Dorze 
(n=24) 


4.45 


1.89 


1.6 


4.36 


25.74 


14.50 


0.2 


0.1 


4.09 


Zada (n=223) 
& Borada T 
(n=187) 


7.12 


12.3 



4.32 


5.96 


21.64 


48.56 


0.3 


1.0 


3.05 


Zada (n=223) 
& Ochollo 

(n=22) 


3.14 


6.27 


7.21 




28.39 


15.34 


0.1 


0.6 




Zada (n=223) 
& Borada Z 
(n=565) 


13.4 
6 


15.5 
3 


16.6 


16.24 


25.53 


8.03 


0.0 


1.9 


17.26 


Dorze (n=24) 
& Borada T 

(n=187) 


5.57 


3.73 


2.43 


1.45 


11.25 


9.03 


0.0 


0.4 


2.59 


Dorze (n=24) 
& Ochollo 
(n=22) 


7.08 


5.23 


6.74 




3.91 


50.97 


0.0 


0.6 




Dorze (n=24) 
& Borada Z 

(n=565) 


12.3 

7 


4.15 


8.49 


11.37 


16.53 


15.45 


0.2 


0.8 


12.63 


Borada T 

(n=187)& 

Ochollo 

(n=22) 


0.75 


0.61 


2.28 




14.24 


51.89 


0.1 


0.1 




Borada T 
(n=187)& 
Borada Z 
(n=565) 


1.23 


2.22 


5.16 


22.65 


4.71 


57.55 


0.4 


0.2 


20.48 


Ochollo 

(n=22) & 
Borada Z 

(n=565) 


1.06 


0.13 


2.24 




20.51 


23.22 


0.1 


0.2 





332 



Table C-19: Moiety t-test for handles and sockets (bolded cells are significant at the 
0.05 confidence level). 



Mean 


Tutuma 


Tutuma 


Tutuma 


Zucano 


Zucano 


Zucano 


Measure- 


Dogala 


Mala 


T-test 


Dogala 


Mala 


T-test 


ment in 


(n=112) 


(n=41) 


Results 


(n=48) 


(n= 28) 


Results 


centi- 






T-critical 1.96 






T-critical 


meters 












1.96 


Length 


36.97 


36.39 


0.04 


26.88 


26.87 


0.01 


(variance) 


(80.19) 


(38.47) 




(6.45) 


(6.88) 




Breadth/ 


0.089 


0.087 


33.26 


0.287 


0.266 


2.56 


Length 


(0) 


(0) 




(0.002) 


(0.057) 




(variance) 














Thickness/ 


0.09 


0.088 


0.41 


0.141 


0.128 


0.29 


Length 


(0.026) 


(0.027) 




(0.13) 


(0.25) 




(variance) 














Socket 


4.17 


3.60 


0.36 


1.36 


1.28 


6.89 


B/L ratio 


(9.84) 


(4.74) 




(0.07) 


(0.08) 




(variance) 















Table C-20: Moiety mean measurements and t-test of unused scrapers (bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean Measurements 
in centimeters 
(variance) 


Dogala 
(n= 680) 


Mala 
(n=260) 


T-test 

Results 

T-critical = 2.00 


Medial Breadth 


2.47 (0.47) 


2.65(0.16) 


6 


Length 


3.24(0.82) 


4.15(0.42) 


17 


Distal Thickness 


0.45 (0.41) 


0.40 (0.02) 


2.03 


Proximal Thickness 


1.08(0.18) 


1.33(0.11) 


21 


Breadth/Length 


0.38 (0.03) 


0.65(0.14) 


47 


Thickness/Length 


0.11 (0) 


0.10(0) 


87.5 



333 



Table C-21: Moiety mean measurements and t-test of used-up scrapers (bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean Measurements 

in centimeters 

(variance) 


Dogala 
(n= 677) 


Mala 
(n= 372) 


T-test Results 
T-critical =2.00 


Medial Breadth 


2.34(0.19) 


2.57(0.14) 


20 


Length 


2.67 (0.41) 


3.05 (0.40) 


22 


Distal Thickness 


0.82(0.10) 


0.92 (0.09) 


16 


Proximal Thickness 


1.08(0.11) 


1.19(0.28) 


9.2 


Breadth/Length 


0.74 (0.09) 


0.88 (0.04) 


85 


Thickness/Length 


0.32 (0.02) 


0.32 (0.01) 


0.67 



Table C-22: Moiety and handle type measurements and t-test of unused scrapers 
(bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean 

Measurement 
in centimeters 


Tutuma 

Dogala 

(n=430) 


Tutuma 
Mala 

(n=34) 


Tutuma 
T-test 

Results 

T-critical 

= 1.96 


Zucano 
Dogala 
(n= 250) 


Zucano 

Mala 
(n= 226) 


Zucano 

T-test 

Results 

T-critical 

=1.96 


Breadth 
(variance) 


2.50 
(0.65) 


2.72 
(0.29) 


1.99 


2.42 
(0.17) 


2.65 
(0.14) 


15.90 


Length 
(variance) 


3.01 
(0.89) 


3.54 
(0.68) 


3.39 


3.65 
(0.45) 


4.24 
(0.32) 


16.51 


Distal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


0.49 
(0.63) 


0.34 
(0.02) 


4.32 


0.37 
(0.03) 


0.40 
(0.02) 


13.60 


Proximal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


1.04 
(0.21) 


1.22 
(0.19) 


16.62 


1.16 
(0.11) 


1.35 
(0.10) 


18.97 


Breadth/Length 
(variance) 


0.39 
(0.07) 


0.81 
(0.05) 


34.76 


0.68 

(0.02) 


0.63 
(0.01) 


32.83 


Thickness 
/Length 


0.12 

(0) 


0.10 

(0) 


30.52 


0.10 

(0) 


0.10 

(0) 


45.37 


Weight 


9.82 
(105.4) 


13.27 
(101.5) 


0.18 


11.05 

(25.94) 


15.76 

(32.25) 


1.76 


Retouch Length 


0.18 
(0.04) 


0.17 
(0.03) 


1.54 


0.27 
(0.04) 


0.35 
(0.03) 


26.6 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


48.7 
(128.8) 


53.65 
(142.7) 


0.21 


53.12 
(81.25) 


50.79 
(99.65) 


0.28 



334 



Table C-23: Moiety and handle type measurement and t-test of used-up scrapers 
(bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Mean 

Measurement 
in centimeters 


Tutuma 
Dogala 
(n= 430) 


Tutuma 

Mala 

(n= 58) 


T-test 
Results 
Tcritical= 
1.96 


Zucano 
Dogala 
(n= 247) 


Zucano 

Mala 
(n=314) 


T-test 

Results 
T-critical 
= 1.96 


Breadth 
(variance) 


2.35 
(0.23) 


2.72 
(0.29) 


11.36 


2.34 
(0.13) 


2.50 
(0.11) 


16.22 


Length 
(variance) 


2.65 
(0.47) 


3.22 
(0.41) 


8.87 


2.72 
(0.32) 


3.02 
(0.39) 


9.68 


Proximal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


1.05 
(0.11) 


1.24 
(0.14) 


11.55 


1.13 
(0.09) 


1.18 
(0.30) 


2.62 


Distal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


0.78 
(0.10) 


0.84 
(0.10) 


4.62 


0.90 
(0.09) 


0.93 
(0.09) 


4.72 


Breadth/ 

Length 

(variance) 


0.92 
(0.05) 


0.88 
(0.06) 


6.29 


0.89 
(0.04) 


0.88 
(0.04) 


4.33 


Thickness 

/Length 

(variance) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


0.26 
(0.01) 


17.45 


0.34 
(0.02) 


0.33 
(0.02) 


12.97 


Weight 


7.93 
(26.1) 


13.2 
(38.9) 


1.32 


8.33 
(15.93) 


10.11 
(15.36) 


1.34 


Retouch 
Length 


0.87 
(0.13) 


.88 
(0.14) 


0.22 


0.99 
(0.12) 


1.02 
(0.09) 


3.15 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


65.5 
(167.6) 


69.22 
(167.5) 


0.15 


67.29 
(149.3) 


68.26 
(146.7) 


0.08 



335 



Table 24: Clan zucano handle mean breadth/length ratio and t-test results (bolded 
cells are signficant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Clan 

(Number of 

Handles) 


Clan 1 (listed 1 st in 

l sl column) 
Mean Breadth/ 
Length Ratio 


Clan 2 (listed 2 nd in 

1 st column) 

Mean Breadth/ 

Length Ratio 


T-test Results 
T-critical =2.00 


Damota (11) & 
Gezemala (17) 


0.27 

(0) 


0.25 
(0) 


12.21 


Damota (11) & 
Maagata(19) 


0.27 
(0) 


0.27 
(0) 


4.11 


Damota (11) & 
Zutuma(lO) 


0.27 
(0) 


0.004 
(0) 


287.29 


Gezemala (17) & 
Maagata(19) 


0.25 
(0) 


0.27 
(0) 


17.13 


Gezemala (17)& 
Zutuma(lO) 


0.25 
(0) 


0.004 
(0) 


184.41 


Maagata (19) & 
Zutuma(lO) 


0.27 
(0) 


0.004 
(0) 


214.44 



Table C-25 Clan tutuma handle mean breadth/length ratio and t-test (bolded cells are 
significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Clans 

(Number of 

Handles) 


Clanl 

Mean Breadth/ 

Length Ratio 


Clan 2 

Mean Breadth/ 

Length Ratio 


T-test Results 
T-critical =2.00 


Amara (15) & 
Bola(19) 


0.09 

(0) 


0.08 
(0) 


47.68 


Amara (15) & 
Gezemala (36) 


0.09 
(0) 


0.13 
(0) 


19.82 


Amara (15) & 
Zutuma (40) 


0.09 

(0) 


0.097 
(0) 


62.44 


Bola (19) & 
Gezemala (36) 


0.08 
(0) 


0.13 
(0) 


25.66 


Bola (19) & 
Zutuma (40) 


0.08 

(0) 


0.097 
(0) 


176.89 


Gezemala (36) 
& Zutuma (40) 


0.13 
(0) 


0.097 
(0) 


27.38 



336 

Table C-26: Clan zucano handle socket t-tests (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 
confidence level). 



Clans 

(Number of 

Handles) 


Clanl 

Mean Breadth/ Length 

Ratio 


Clan 2 

Mean Breadth/ 

Length Ratio 


T-test Results 
T-critical =2.00 


Damota (18) & 
Gezemala (34) 


1.35 
(0.06) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


2.18 


Damota (18) & 
Maagata (35) 


1.35 
(0.06) 


1.44 
(0.15) 


2.31 


Damota (18) & 
Zutuma(19) 


1.35 
(0.06) 


1.38 
(0.06) 


1.74 


Gezemala (34) & 
Maagata (35) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


1.44 
(0.15) 


4.53 


Gezemala (34) 
&Zutuma(19) 


1.31 
(0.08) 


1.38 
(0.06) 


3.76 


Maagata (35) & 
Zutuma(19) 


1.44 
(0.15) 


1.38 
(0.06) 


1.62 



Table C-27: Clan tutuma handle socket t-tests (bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 
confidence level). 



Clans 

(Number of 

Handles) 


Clanl 

Mean Breadth/ Length 

Ratio 


Clan 2 

Mean 

Breadth/ 

Length Ratio 


T-test Results 

T-critical 

=2.00 


Amara (15) & 
Bola(19) 


3.03 
(1.49) 


2.96 
(1.42) 


0.14 


Amara (15) & 
Gezemala (36) 


3.03 
(1.49) 


3.39 

(4.97) 


0.27 


Amara (15) & 
Zutuma (40) 


3.03 
(1.49) 


4.15 
(5.26) 


0.81 


Bola (19) & 
Gezemala (36) 


2.96 

(1.42) 


3.39 
(4.97) 


0.36 


Bola (19) & 
Zutuma (40) 


2.96 

(1.42) 


4.15 
(5.26) 


0.96 


Gezemala (36) & 
Zutuma (40) 


3.39 
(4.97) 


4.15 
(5.26) 


0.65 






337 



Table C-28: Clan unused scraper mean morphological measurements with variance. 



Clan 


Breadth 
cm 


Length 
cm 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thickness 


Breadth/ 
Length 


Thickness 
/Length 


M 

'3 


Edge 
Angle 


Retouch 
Length 


Maagata 
(n=244) 


2.42 
(0.19) 


3.65 
(0.45) 


1.16 
(0.11) 


0.37 
(0.03) 


0.68 
(0.02) 


0.10 
(0) 


11.1 

(29) 


53.1 
(82.4) 


0.27 
(0.04) 


Geze- 
mala 
(n=249) 


2.63 
(0.15) 


4.16 
(0.42) 


1.32 
(0.11) 


0.24 
(0.38) 


0.65 
(0.02) 


0.09 
(0) 


15.25 
(41) 


51.15 
(103) 


0.33 
(0.03) 


Zutuma 
(n=296) 


2.24 
(0.33) 


2.72 
(0.46) 


0.96 
(0.19) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


0.85 
(0.05) 


0.13 
(0.05 


6.18 

(33) 


46.9 
(108) 


1.99 
(0.36) 


Bolosa 
(n=64) 


2.91 
(1.07) 


3.42 
(1.46) 


1.23 
(0.24) 


0.40 
(0.06) 


0.89 
(0.10) 


0.12 
(0) 


15.66 
(99) 


54.7 
(164) 


0.29 
(0.08) 


Damota 

(n=72) 


2.79 
(0.42) 


4.08 
(1.14) 


1.19 
(0.15) 


0.45 
(0.03) 


0.71 
(0.04) 


0.25 
(0.07 


17.3 
(331) 


58.23 
(176) 


0.33 
(0.05) 



Table C-29: Clan unused scrapers t-test results (T-critical is 2.00, bolded cells are 
significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Clan 


1 

Hi 
PQ 


M 

a 

M 

C 
B 


§ ■, 

■fl m 

9 S 55 

0- H fl 


1J& - 

Q H C 


If 

« Sf 
a S 

M - 


■ 

B — < 

-i DC 

2 .5 


— 
"3 


0) — 
6C Ml 

-a c 


o w> 

- c 


Maagata 
& Damota 


10.8 


4.8 


0.56 


22.45 


11.6 


31.07 


0.2 
9 


0.34 


11.5 
1 


Maagata 

& 

Gezemala 


14.0 


12.9 


5.35 


5.21 


17.04 


38.53 


1.2 

5 


0.24 


19.7 
9 


Damota & 
Gezemala 


6.687 


0.86 


1.62 


6.5 


19.62 


32.93 


0.0 
9 


0.43 


3.57 


Maagata 
&Zutuma 


7.43 


23.44 


8.75 


28.25 


52.05 


44.43 


1.5 

7 


0.45 


44.1 
1 


Maagata 
& Bolosa 


5.03 


2.11 


3.35 


32.32 


32.19 


45.04 


0.6 
1 


0.11 


14.6 
8 


Damota & 
Bolosa 


0.89 


2.9 


1.43 


6.22 


14.07 


13.70 


0.0 

4 


0.12 


3.29 


Gezemala 
& Bolosa 


12.04 


6.89 


8.97 


59.38 


36.18 


80.39 


0.0 

5 


0.22 


43.1 




Table C-29 continued. 



338 



Gezemala 
& Zutuma 


4.01 


37.2 


1.99 


5.65 


60.36 


76.24 


2.61 


0.6 

3 


5.68 


Zutuma & 
Bolosa 


17.21 


6.7 


15.4 

5 


51.89 


5.39 


1.49 


1.24 


0.1 
3 


72.87 


Damota & 
Zutuma 


9.02 


15.82 


9.62 


21.93 


21.59 


27.38 


0.53 


0.0 

8 


25.31 



Table C-30: Clan used-up scraper mean morphological measurements with variance. 



Clan 


Breadth 
cm 


1 



ja 

H 

M 
C 
B 


Proximal 
Thickness cm 


Distal 
Thickness cm 


Breadth 
/Length cm 


Thickness/ 
Length cm 




M 

C 
< 

1! 


Retouch 
Length cm 


Maa- 


2.31 


2.65 


1.10 


0.89 


0.89 


0.35 


7.77 


68.0 


0.99 


gata 


(0.12) 


(0.21) 


(0.08) 


(0.08) 


(0.04) 


(0.12) 


(8.33) 


(150) 


(0.33) 


(218) 




















Geze- 


2.56 


3.0 


1.17 


0.92 


0.88 


0.32 


10.39 


68.4 


1.00 


mala 


(0.14) 


(0.36) 


(0.09) 


(0.09) 


(0.04) 


(0.02) 


(19.2) 


(147) 


(0.09) 


(352) 




















Zu- 


2.33 


2.49 


1.05 


0.83 


0.96 


0.34 


7.37 


67.9 


0.88 


tuma 


(0.21) 


(0.60) 


(0.09) 


(0.11) 


(0.04) 


(0.33) 


(19.4) 


(151) 


(0.14) 


(239) 




















Bo- 


2.39 


2.94 


1.08 


0.72 


0.85 


0.25 


9.32 


60.68 


0.82 


losa 


(0.26) 


(0.60) 


(0.18) 


(0.09) 


(0.05) 


(0.01) 


(41.2) 


(150) 


(0.12) 


(142) 




















Da- 


2.29 


2.86 


1.12 


0.76 


0.82 


0.34 


8.90 


64.02 


0.87 


mota 


(0.19) 


(0.46) 


(0.11) 


(0.06) 


(0.02) 


(0.01) 


(48.1) 


(172) 


(0.13) 


(50) 





















339 



Table C-31: Clan t-test for used-up scrapers results (T-critical is 2.00, bolded cells are 
significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Clan 


JS 

1 
B 

E 

ea 


1 
- 


ft aj 

£ S 
5 a 

P "3 

ft- H 


■ 

C 

1 3 

5 H 


o 
1 4 

V Ml 

B fi 
03 v 


■ 
s -= 

•a s 

P J 


■*•» 

jfe 


1/ — 

SO N 

<S e 


I WD 
■S C 
6 a* 

fiti -3 


Maagata 

& 

Damota 


1.03 


5.80 


5.52 


11.47 


12.54 


2.45 


0.3 

3 


0.16 


6.56 


Maagata 
& Geze- 
mala 


20.6 
1 


14.91 


81.72 


3.32 


4.05 


21.8 
8 


1.9 


0.03 


1.63 


Damota 
& Geze- 
mala 


0.64 


2.66 


0.95 


7.73 


9.36 


10.5 

2 


0.3 
9 


0.19 


8.91 


Maagata 

& 

Zutuma 


4.08 


4.04 


2.8 


19.32 


16.37 


2.94 


0.2 
8 





13.78 


Maagata 
& Bolosa 


8.53 


7.39 


47.19 


22.79 


9.88 


54.0 
9 


0.5 

4 


0.45 


17.23 


Damota 
& Bolosa 


16.1 
1 


0.85 


76.50 


11.56 


4.29 


37.5 
1 


0.0 
6 


0.13 


12.08 


Geze- 

mala & 
Bolosa 


3.04 


8.87 


2.15 


9.60 


23.95 


45.7 



0.3 
9 


0.53 


4.45 


Geze- 
mala & 
Zutuma 


11.6 

2 


1.57 


38.46 


12.66 


6.93 


43.6 
4 


1.8 

7 


0.04 


8.24 


Zutuma 
& Bolosa 


2.62 


16.79 


1.35 


2.79 


21.7 


16.9 

5 


0.6 

3 


0.45 


2.55 


Damota 

& 
Zutuma 


1.04 


5.99 


4.26 


4.11 


23.24 


0.37 


0.3 

7 


0.16 


0.50 



340 



Table C-32: Chi-square test of village raw materials. 



Raw Material 


Mogesa 


Amure 


Eeyahoo 


Patela 




Obsidian 


31 


30 


24 


65 


150 


Chert Yellow 
Brown 


12 


158 


42 


102 


314 


Chert Red 


4 


114 





138 


256 


Chert Pink 








3 


4 


7 


Chert Purple 











6 


6 


Chert Brown 


21 


17 


2 


41 


81 


Chert Black 


189 


12 





32 


233 


Chert White 


19 


24 


28 


11 


82 


Chert Green 


175 


3 





84 


262 


Chert Grey 


36 


92 


152 


11 


291 




487 


450 


252 


494 


1682 




Observed 


Expected 










31 


43.43 


3.56 








12 


90.91 


68.50 








4 


73.73 


65.94 











6.95 


6.95 











5.21 


5.21 








21 


45.17 


12.93 











0.87 


0.87 








189 


70.94 


196.50 








19 


16.79 


0.29 








175 


75.45 


131.35 








36 


57.62 


8.11 








30 


40.13 


2.56 








170 


84.01 


88.03 








114 


68.49 


30.24 











6.42 


6.42 











4.82 


4.82 








15 


41.74 


17.13 








2 


0.80 


1.79 








12 


65.55 


43.74 








24 


15.52 


4.64 








3 


69.29 


63.42 








92 


53.24 


28.22 








24 


22.47 


0.10 








42 


47.04 


0.54 











38.35 


38.35 








3 


3.60 


0.10 











2.70 


2.70 








2 


23.37 


19.54 







341 



Table C-32 continued. 








0.45 


0.45 











36.71 


36.71 








28 


8.69 


42.91 











38.80 


38.80 








152 


29.81 


500.74 








64 


44.05 


9.03 








102 


92.22 


1.04 








136 


75.19 


49.19 








4 


7.05 


1.32 








6 


5.29 


0.10 








41 


45.82 


0.51 











0.88 


0.88 








32 


71.96 


22.19 








11 


17.03 


2.14 








84 


76.07 


0.83 








11 


58.45 


38.52 












1346.45 






Degrees of freedom 


27 




Significance level at0.05 = 40.1 133 


Since 1346 is greater than 40.1 133 than the differences are significant 



Table C-33: Lineage/ village handles mean breadth/length ratio and t-test results 
(bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Village 


Handle 
Type 


Village 1 
Mean 

Breadth/ 
Length 


Village 2 
Mean 

Breadth/ 
Length 


T-test 

Results 

T-critical 

=2.00 


Afilaketsa (n=5) 
& Amure (n=17) 


Zucano 


0.22 (0) 


0.28 (0) 


49.2 


Afilaketsa (n=5) 
&Mogesa(n=12) 


Zucano 


0.22 (0) 


0.27 (0) 


51.7 


Amure (n=17) & 
Mogesa (n=12) 


Zucano 


0.28 (0) 


0.27 (0) 


10.3 


Eeyahoo (n=5) & 
Tzabo (n=5) 


Tutuma 


0.10 1(0) 


0.09 (0) 


48.7 


Eeyahoo (n=5) & 
Patela(n=18) 


Tutuma 


0.101 (0) 


0.103 (0) 


11.7 


Tzabo (n=5) & 
Patela(n=18) 


Tutuma 


0.09 (0) 


0.103(0) 


88.2 



342 

Table C-34: Lineage/village socket mean measurements and t-test results (bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Village 


Handle 
Type 


Village 1 
Mean 

Breadth/ 
Length 


Village 2 
Mean 

Breadth/ 
Length 


T-test 

Results 

T-critical = 

2.00 


Afilaketsa (n=5) 
& Amure (n=32) 


Zucano 


1.39(0.03) 


1.38(0.08) 


0.022 


Afilaketsa (n=5) 
& Mogesa (n=24) 


Zucano 


1.39(0.03) 


1.31 (0.09) 


1.73 


Amure (n=5) & 
Mogesa (n=24) 


Zucano 


1.38(0.08) 


1.31 (0.09) 


3.09 


Eeyahoo (n=5) & 
Tzabo (n=5) 


Tutuma 


3.16(0.37) 


3.45 (2.57) 


0.25 


Eeyahoo (n=5) & 
Patela (n= 18) 


Tutuma 


3.16(0.37) 


4.55 (5.72) 


0.53 


Tzabo (n=5) & 
Patela (n= 18) 


Tutuma 


3.45 (2.57) 


4.55 (5.72) 


0.41 



Table C-35: Lineage/village unused scrapers mean morphological measurements with 
variance. 



Village 


1 


JS 
s 

oc 

H m 
— u 


. se 

e i 

•a -S 

ft* H § 


■ 

6 

a 
1 3 8 

Q H 5 


1 gf 

S fl _ 

a w £ 

CQ J u 


(A 
| | 


I C? 

= ^5 a 

) OS M 5 


Patela 

(n=285) 

Tutuma 


2.23 
(0.33) 


2.70 
(0.41) 


0.95 

(0.19) 


0.31 
(0.01) 


0.85 
(0.05) 


0.12 
(0) 


0.14 
(0.02) 


Eeyahoo 

(n=78) 

Tutuma 


2.56 
(0.38) 


3.14 
(0.66) 


1.13 

(0.17) 


0.34 
(0.02) 


0.87 
(0.10) 


0.11 
(0) 


0.21 
(0.03) 


Mogesa 
(n=209) 
Zucano 


2.62 
(0.13) 


4.25 
(0.32) 


1.34 
(0.10) 


0.40 
(0.02) 


0.62 
(0.01) 


0.09 
(0) 


0.35 
(0.03) 


Amure 

(n=239) 

Zucano 


2.41 
(0.07) 


3.64 
(0.45) 


1.16 
(0.10) 


0.36 

(0.3) 


0.68 
(0.02) 


0.10 
(0) 


0.26 
(0.03) 



343 



Table C-36: Lineage/village unused scrapers t-test results (T-critical = 1 .96, bolded 
cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Village 


Breadth 
cm 


Length 
cm 


Proximal 

Thickness 

cm 


Distal 

Thickness 

cm 


Breadth/ 

Length 

cm 


Thickness/ 
Lengthcm 


Retouch 

Length 

cm 


Patela & 
Eeyahoo 


7.64 


7.22 


7.13 


14.3 


2.11 


12.0 


21.02 


Patela & 
Mogesa 


16.44 


54.78 


19.88 


62.67 


64.88 


125.6 


90.7 


Patela & 
Amure 


5.42 


24.99 


14.66 


29.28 


51.73 


65.2 


57.01 


Eeyahoo 

& 

Mogesa 


2.01 


24.33 


7.1 


23.44 


34.35 


74.28 


40.9 


Eeyahoo 
& Amure 


2.94 


7.53 


1.99 


6.55 


28.07 


29.0 


17.72 


Amure & 

Mogesa 


7.27 


19.65 


8.77 


18.85 


36.62 


40.23 


35.68 



Table C-37: Lineage/village used-up scrapers mean morphological measurements and 
variance. In Chapter 2, the village total is 881 for the used-up scrapers for all 4 
villages. Here the total is 872 because 9 scrapers from Mogesa were not included in 
analysis because 1 individual made the scraper and another used them. 



Village 


A 

9 

1 
<u _ 

£ s 

CQ u 


s 

— u 


•3 41 


n 

■ 

a 
1 7* 8 


a! 

1 9 

09 U 


■ 

s^ ■« 

2 8 c 


'd — 
| B 

vug 
05 J Q 


Patela 

(n=209) 

Tutuma 


2.29 
(0.20) 


2.43 
(0.33) 


1.03 
(0.09) 


0.80 
(0.09) 


0.97 
(0.04) 


0.35 
(0.02) 


0.87 
(0.13) 


Eeyahoo 

(n=174) 

Tutuma 


2.45 
(0.29) 


2.96 
(0.53) 


1.10 
(0.17) 


0.73 
(0.09) 


0.86 
(0.05) 


0.25 
(0.01) 


0.82 
(0.13) 


Mogesa 
(n=278) 
Zucano 


2.53 
(0.11) 


2.98 
(0.34) 


1.15 
(0.08) 


0.94 
(0.09) 


0.88 
(0.04) 


0.33 
(0.02) 


1.03 
(0.09) 


Amure 

(n=211) 

Zucano 


2.31 
(0.11) 


2.64 
(0.20) 


1.10 
(0.08) 


0.89 
(0.08) 


0.89 
(0.04) 


0.35 
(0.02) 


0.99 

(0.11) 



344 



Table C-38: Lineage/village used-up scrapers t-test results (T-critical is 1.96, bolded 
cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Village 


Breadth 
cm 


Length 
cm 


Proximal 

Thickness 

cm 


Distal 

Thickness 

cm 


Breadth/ 
Length cm 


Thickness/ 

Length 

cm 


Retouch 

Length 

cm 


Patela & 
Eeyahoo 


6.31 


11.94 


4.55 


7.63 


21.77 


5.79 


3.67 


Patela & 
Mogesa 


16.91 


17.84 


15.17 


15.85 


23.47 


1.41 


16.11 


Patela & 
Amure 


1.23 


7.87 


7.76 


10.51 


16.82 


0.24 


10.6 


Eeyahoo 

& 
Mogesa 


4.02 


0.46 


4.74 


23.94 


4.2 


52.48 


20.4 


Eeyahoo 
& Amure 


6.4 


8.08 


0.31 


18.63 


7.71 


59.99 


14.4 


Amure & 
Mogesa 


21.78 


12.85 


7.18 


5.31 


5.09 


14.30 


4.39 



Table C-39: Mogesa domestic group unused scraper mean measurements. 



Measurement in 
cm 


Yeka group 
(n=31) 


Buta group 
(n=90) 


Mokano group 

(n=88) 


Breadth 


2.95 
(0.13) 


2.64 
(0.13) 


2.45 
(0.09) 


Length 


4.30 
(0.35) 


4.22 
(0.32) 


4.26 
(0.03) 


Proximal 
Thickness 


1.31 
(0.07) 


1.28 
(0.10) 


1.41 
(0.11) 


Distal Thickness 


0.47 ( 
0.03) 


0.36 
(0.01) 


0.42 
(0.02) 


Breadth/ Length 


0.70 
(0.01) 


0.63 
(0.01) 


0.59 
(0.01) 


Thickness/ 
Length 


0.11 
(0) 


0.09 

(0) 


0.10 
(0) 


Retouch length 


0.38 
(0.02) 


0.34 
(0.03) 


0.36 
(0.02) 


Distal edge angle 


50.51 
(50.59) 


48.21 
(107.55) 


53.39 
(59.89) 



345 



Table C-40: Mogesa domestic group t-test results for unused scrapers (T-Critical = 
1.99, bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Measurement in 
cm 


Yeka (n=31) -Buta 
(n= 90) groups 


Yeka (n=31)-Mokano 
(n=88) groups 


Buta (n=90)- 

Mokano (n=88) 

group 


Breadth 


11.55 


23.96 


11.80 


Length 


1.07 


0.95 


1.10 


Proximal thick 


1.50 


4.97 


8.58 


Distal thick 


26.82 


11.63 


24.53 


Breadth/ Length 


32.35 


36.95 


29.32 


Thickness/ Length 


87.00 


40.93 


74.44 


Retouch length 


5.80 


3.61 


4.74 


Distal edge angle 


0.11 


0.21 


0.38 



Table C-41: Amure domestic group unused scraper mean measurements. 



Measurement in 
cm 


Hanicha group 

(n= 99) 


Gamana group 

(n=81) 


Hagay group 
(n=59) 


Breadth 


2.40 
(0.16) 


2.50 
(0.17) 


2.30 
(0.17) 


Length 


3.59 
(0.31) 


4.00 
(0.43) 


3.23 
(0.37) 


Proximal 
Thickness 


1.19 
(0.09) 


1.18 
(0.11) 


1.07 
(0.12) 


Distal Thickness 


0.37 
(0.02) 


0.35 
(0.02) 


0.36 
(0.04) 


Breadth/ Length 


0.68 
(0.01) 


0.63 
(0.01) 


0.73 
(0.03) 


Thickness/ 
Length 


0.11 
(0) 


0.09 
(0) 


0.11 
(0) 


Retouch Length 


0.26 
(0.03) 


0.28 
(0.03) 


0.25 
(0.06) 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


53 
(58.8) 


53.6 
(65.1) 


54.5 
(108.60 



346 



Table C-42: Amure domestic group t-test results for unused scrapers (T-Critical = 
1.99, bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Measurement in 
cm 


Hanicha-Gamana 


Hanicha-Hagay 


Hagay- 
Gamana 


Breadth 


3.89 


3.81 


6.80 


Length 


7.27 


6.61 


11.02 


Proximal Thick 


0.63 


7.17 


5.76 


Distal Thickness 


5.71 


3.69 


0.33 


Breadth/ Length 


24.59 


16.27 


26.63 


Thickness/ 
Length 


55.92 


13.61 


51.74 


Retouch Length 


5.63 


0.50 


3.75 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


0.07 


0.09 


0.04 



Table C-43: Patela domestic group unused scraper mean measurements. 



Measurement 
in cm 


Arka group 
(n= 96) 


Garcho group 

(n=79) 


Tina group 
(n=41) 


Darsa group 
(n=69) 


Breadth 


2.26 
(0.41) 


2.14 
(0.31) 


2.28 
(0.36) 


2.27 
(0.21) 


Length 


2.66 
(0.54) 


2.62 
(0.34) 


2.75 
(0.32) 


2.83 
(0.35) 


Proximal 
Thickness 


0.89 
(0.17) 


0.94 
(0.13) 


1.07 
(0.48) 


0.99 

(0.12) 


Distal 
Thickness 


0.33 
(.01) 


0.27 
(0.02) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


0.32 
(0.02) 


B/L 


0.88 
(0.06) 


0.84 
(0.06) 


0.85 
(0.04) 


0.82 
(0.03) 


T/L 


0.13 
(0) 


0.11 
(0) 


0.12 
(0) 


0.12 
(0) 


Retouch 
Length 


0.13 
(0.03) 


0.11 
(.01) 


0.22 
(0.03) 


0.17 
(0.02) 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


47.18 
(111.99) 


44.05 
(106.27) 


47.92 
(98.92) 


50.50 
(79.48) 



347 

Table C-44: Patela domestic group t-test results for unused scrapers (T-Critical = 1 .99, 
bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Measurement 
in cm 


Arka- 
Garcho 


Arka- 
Tina 


Arka- 
Darsa 


Garcho- 
Tina 


Garcho- 
Darsa 


Tina- 
Darsa 


Breadth 


2.27 


0.29 


0.12 


2.34 


3.00 


0.27 


Length 


0.56 


0.96 


2.26 


1.94 


3.60 


1.22 


Proximal 
Thickness 


2.33 


3.23 


4.50 


2.17 


2.57 


1.18 


Distal 
Thickness 


29.29 


8.51 


5.07 


13.56 


19.58 


3.18 


Breadth/ 
Length 


4.08 


3.05 


7.56 


0.53 


2.83 


4.08 


Thickness/ 
Length 


64.86 


31.66 


41.95 


21.75 


26.21 


1.47 


Retouch 


5.70 


16.61 


11.92 


26.52 


27.34 


10.02 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


0.19 


0.04 


0.21 


0.19 


0.41 


0.15 



Table C-45: Mogesa domestic group used-up scraper mean measurements. 



Measurement in 
cm 


Yeka group 

(n=68) 


Buta group 
(n=146) 


Mokano group 
(n=64) 


Breadth 


2.62 
(0.07) 


2.53 
(0.13) 


2.43 
(0.07) 


Length 


2.47 
(0.08) 


3.11 
(0.31) 


3.21 
(0.33) 


Proximal Thickness 


1.10 
(0.06) 


1.18 
(0.08) 


1.16 
(0.09) 


Distal Thickness 


0.98 
(0.06) 


0.93 
(0.09) 


0.89 
(0.11) 


Breadth/ Length 


1.08 
(0.03) 


0.84 
(0.03) 


0.78 
(0.02) 


Thickness/ 
Length 


0.40 
(0.01) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


0.29 
(0.01) 


Retouch Length 


1.04 
(0.07) 


1.04 
(0.09) 


0.99 
(0.10) 


Distal Edge Angle 


68.59 
(59.69) 


67.75 
(139.61) 


64.09(91.71) 






348 



Table C-46: Mogesa domestic group t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-Critical 
1 .99, bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Measurement in 
cm 


Yeka-Buta 
group 


Yeka-Mokano 
group 


Buta-Mokano 
groups 


Breadth 


3.70 


12.50 


6.45 


Length 


11.42 


12.48 


2.27 


Proximal Thick 


4.55 


3.07 


1.29 


Distal Thickness 


2.50 


4.13 


2.81 


Breadth/ Length 


37.64 


60.78 


14.92 


Thickness/ 
Length 


27.73 


86.88 


157.89 


Retouch Length 


0.29 


0.28 


0.42 


Distal Edge Angle 


0.32 


0.34 


0.22 



Table C-47: Amure domestic group used-up scraper mean measurements. 



Measurement in 
cm 


Hanicha group 
(n=102) 


Gamana group 

(n=76) 


Hagay group 

(n= 33) 


Breadth 


2.34 
(0.09) 


2.24 
(0.13) 


2.37 
(0.13) 


Length 


2.72 
(0.14) 


2.62 
(0.23) 


2.46 
(0.27) 


Proximal 
Thickness 


1.10 
(0.08) 


1.09 
(0.09) 


1.13 
(0.08) 


Distal Thickness 


0.87 
(0.09) 


0.88 
(0.07) 


0.99 
(0.07) 


Breadth/ Length 


0.88 
(0.03) 


0.88 
(0.04) 


1.00 
(0.07) 


Thickness/ 
Length 


0.33 
(0.01) 


0.35 
(0.02) 


0.42 
(0.02) 


Retouch Length 


0.99 
(0.13) 


0.96 
(0.08 ) 


1.04 
(0.07) 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


64.9 
(70.79) 


68.6 
(141.36) 


71.62(111.84) 









349 



Table C-48: Amure domestic group t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-Critical is 
1.99, bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Measurement in 
cm 


Hanicha-Gamana 


Hanicha-Hagay 


Hagay-Gamana 


Breadth 


22.40 


18.70 


4.81 


Length 


3.52 


7.21 


3.19 


Proximal Thick 


0.26 


2.11 


1.90 


Distal Thickness 


0.58 


7.05 


8.04 


Breadth/ Length 


0.11 


14.07 


11.87 


Thickness/ 
Length 


8.51 


27.54 


18.52 


Retouch Length 


1.52 


1.98 


4.54 


Distal Edge Angle 


0.16 


0.32 


0.14 



Table C-49: Patela domestic group used-up scraper mean measurements (Garcho 
group does not contain Garcho scrapers since he is retired, but those of his sons). 



Measurement 
in cm 


Arka 
Group (n= 76) 


Garcho 
group (n=26) 


Tina 
group (n=42) 


Darsa 
group (n=61) 


Breadth 


2.41 
(0.24) 


2.24 
(0.20) 


2.27 
(0.13) 


2.16 
(0.16) 


Length 


2.53 
(0.38) 


2.36 
(0.25) 


2.35 
(0.21) 


2.37 
(0.36) 


Proximal 
Thickness 


1.02 
(0.08) 


1.08 
(0.15) 


1.07 
(0.09) 


1.01 
(0.11) 


Distal 
Thickness 


0.76 
(0.09) 


0.91 
(0.14) 


0.85 
(0.10) 


0.79 
(0.08) 


Breadth/ 
Length 


0.99 
(0.06) 


0.96 
(0.02) 


0.99 
(0.04) 


0.94 
(0.04) 


Thickness/ 
Length 


0.32 
(0.03) 


0.38 
(0.01) 


0.37 
(0.02) 


0.35 
(0.02) 


Retouch 


0.87 
(0.19) 


0.98 
(0.13) 


0.89 
(0.08) 


0.80 
(0.08) 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


66.86(154.57) 


69.03 
(110.27) 


69.56 
(89.27) 


66.93 
(101.41) 



350 



Table C-50: Patela domestic group t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-Critical is 
1.99, bolded cells are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Measurement 
in cm 


Arka- 
Garcho 


Arka- 
Tina 


Arka- 
Darsa 


Garcho- 
Tina 


Garcho- 
Darsa 


Tina- 
Darsa 


Breadth 


3.19 


3.37 


7.14 


0.67 


2.15 


3.98 


Length 


2.14 


2.78 


2.50 


0.08 


0.17 


0.29 


Proximal 
Thickness 


2.61 


3.07 


0.48 


0.31 


2.41 


2.85 


Distal 
Thickness 


6.36 


5.17 


2.24 


1.74 


4.95 


3.34 


Breadth/ 
Length 


2.07 


0.26 


5.52 


3.19 


2.94 


6.63 


Thickness/ 
Length 


11.07 


9.36 


6.36 


4.29 


8.03 


4.37 


Retouch 


2.91 


0.79 


2.38 


3.11 


8.14 


5.59 


Distal Edge 
Angle 


0.07 


0.10 


0.00 


0.02 


0.09 


0.14 



Table C-51: Mogesa individual unused scraper mean measurements. 



1 

3 

> 

-3 

e 


Breadth 
(variance) 


Length 
(variance) 


Proximal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


Distal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


Breadth/Lengt 
h Ratio 
(variance) 


Thickness/ 
Length Ratio 
(variance) 


Retouch 

Length 

(variance) 


Buta 
(n=32) 


2.63 

(0.12) 


4.03 

(0.25) 


1.15 
(0.10) 


0.32 
(0.01) 


0.60 (0) 


0.08 

(0) 


0.34 
(0.04) 


Tesfy 
(n=30) 


2.78 
(0.11) 


4.68 
(0.17) 


1.15 
(0.07) 


0.36 
(0.01) 


0.66 

(0.01) 


0.08 
(0) 


0.26 
(0.02) 


Goa 
(n=28) 


2.5 
(0.11) 


3.95 

(0.25) 


1.38 
(0.09) 


0.42 
(0.03) 


0.64 
(0.01) 


0.11 
(0) 


0.43 
(0.03) 


Mokano 
(n=30) 


2.48 
(0.08) 


4.24 
(0.39) 


1.38 
(0.10) 


0.43 
(0.01) 


0.60 
(0.01) 


0.10 
(0) 


0.41 
(0.01) 


Mola 
(n=30) 


2.57 
(0.06) 


4.26 
(0.29) 


1.54 
(0.11) 


2.14 
(0.06) 


0.61 
(0.01) 


0.09 
(0) 


0.32 
(0.02) 


Yonja 
(n=28) 


2.43 
(0.12) 


4.28 
(0.26) 


1.33 
(.09) 


0.43 
(0.02) 


0.57 
(0.01) 


0.10 
(0) 


0.35 
(0.03) 


Yeka 
(n=31) 


2.95 
(0.13) 


4.29 
(0.35) 


1.31 
(.07) 


0.47 
(0.03) 


0.70 
(0.01) 


0.11 
(0) 


0.38 
(0.02) 






351 



Table C-52: Mogesa t-test results for unused scrapers (T-critical is 1 .96, bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Individuals 


B 

a 

E 

as 


So 

c 
■ 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thick 


Breadth/ 
Length 


Thickness/ 
Length 


Retouch 
Length 


Tesfy & Buta 


5.51 


11.98 


3.05 


19.07 


31.64 


17.33 


11.25 


Tesfy & Goa 


9.66 


13.2 


0.5 


11.61 


17.92 


77.47 


8.83 


Tesfy & 
Mokano 


44.8 


5.64 


0.53 


23.08 


0.58 


164.81 


9.49 


Tesfy &Mola 


1.99 


6.75 


3.20 


11.38 


10.59 


82.98 


3.22 


Tesfy&Yonj 


11.47 


6.94 


0.23 


18.31 


15.33 


93.85 


0.70 


Tesfy &Yeka 


5.26 


5.47 


15.07 


108.11 


51.76 


128.05 


4.16 


Buta & Goa 


3.72 


4.31 


10.53 


21.39 


5.16 


75.13 


25.37 


Buta& 
Mokano 


4.84 


2.47 


9.99 


42.17 


22.77 


160.26 


46.14 


Buta & Mola 


0.41 


3.32 


16.26 


24.49 


23.91 


76.95 


11.65 


Buta& 
Yonja 


5.8 


3.75 


8.31 


32.58 


38.61 


89.83 


14.17 


Buta & Yeka 


10.33 


3.46 


9.05 


30.34 


16.29 


124.97 


23.91 


Goa& 
Mokano 


0.68 


3.33 


0.06 


2.31 


13.97 


14.62 


2.34 


Goa & Mola 


0.34 


4.37 


6.14 


2.52 


12.38 


29.96 


14.81 


Goa & Yonja 


2.35 


4.87 


1.87 


1.84 


24.63 


13.08 


8.87 


Goa & Yeka 


14.24 


4.3 


2.93 


7.32 


18.32 


1.73 


6.81 


Mokano & 
Mola 


0.83 


0.26 


5.91 


6.48 


5.48 


30.91 


21.19 


Mokano & 
Yonja 


2.07 


0.47 


1.85 


0.35 


10.15 


0.92 


10.23 


Mokano & 
Yeka 


16.7 


0.59 


2.82 


6.91 


37.39 


25.81 


7.802 


Mola& 
Yonja 


1.29 


0.27 


7.80 


5.34 


22.93 


21.58 


4.57 


Mola& 
Yeka 


3.59 


0.4 


9.53 


10.89 


43.48 


46.14 


10.32 


Yonja & 
Yeka 


15.77 


0.18 


0.73 


6.52 


56.16 


20.54 


3.78 



352 



Table C-53: Amure individual unused scraper mean measurements and variance. 



Individual 


B 

73 
I 

E 

m 


B 

M 

C 
B 

- 


Proxi-mal 
Thick- 
ness 


■ 

V 

S 

a a 

5 H 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


s 5 

— ■> c 
C6 J 


Hanicha 
(n=30) 


2.27 
(0.14) 


3.39 

(0.42) 


1.12 
(0.12) 


0.29 
(0.02) 


0.68 
(0.02) 


0.09 (0) 


0.20 
(0.02) 


Osha 
(n=30) 


2.33 
(0.10) 


3.59 
(0.13) 


1.13 
(0.06) 


0.45 
(0.02) 


0.65 
(0.08) 


0.13(0) 


0.23 
(0.01) 


Galche 
(n=21) 


2.67 
(0.32) 


4.18 
(0.28) 


1.23 
(0.11) 


0.36 
(0.02) 


0.64 
(0.01) 


0.09 (0) 


0.26 
(0.02) 


Bedala 
(n=39) 


2.54 
(0.18) 


3.75 
(0.33) 


1.29 
(0.08) 


0.38 
(0.02) 


0.69 
(0.01) 


0.11 (0) 


0.32 
(0.04) 


Gamana 

(n=29) 


2.33 
(0.13) 


3.5 
(0.25) 


1.11 
(0.11) 


0.34 
(0.02) 


0.67 
(0.01) 


0.08 (0) 


0.29 
(0.02) 


Mardos 
(n=31) 


2.52 
(0.07) 


4.33 
(0.34) 


1.21 
(0.10) 


0.36 
(0.02) 


0.59 
(0.01) 


0.08 (0) 


0.29 

(0.04) 


Hagay 
(n=30) 


2.19 

(0.14) 


2.89 
(0.19) 


1.08 
(0.11) 


0.34 
(0.04) 


0.78 
(0.03) 


0.12(0) 


0.23 
(0.06) 


Chamo 

(n=29) 


2.40 
(0.18) 


3.58 
(0.32) 


1.06 
(0.13) 


0.37 
(0.03) 


0.69 
(0.03) 


0.11 (0) 


0.28 
(0.05) 



Table C-54: Amure t-test results for unused scrapers (T-critical = 1 .96, bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Individual 


« 
fl 

E 

m 


B 

OX) 

e 
-1 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thick 


Breadth/ 
Length 


Thickness 
/Length 


Retouch 
Length 


Hanicha & Osha 


1.9 


2.42 


0.41 


30.98 


2.09 


50.35 


7.34 


Hanicha & Galche 


6.23 


7.47 


3.63 


12.3 


9.59 


8.75 


2.17 


Hanicha & Bedala 


7.03 


3.91 


7.04 


18.5 


1.04 


27.52 


15.03 


Hanicha & 
Gamana 


1.98 


1.15 


0.33 


9.6 


3.17 


13.04 


17.28 


Hanicha Mardos 


8.86 


9.55 


3.18 


13.6 


28.40 


16.31 


11.05 


Hanicha & Hagay 


2.21 


6.01 


1.34 


6.12 


13.42 


29.40 


2.59 


Hanicha & Chamo 


3.10 


1.87 


1.53 


12.09 


0.49 


18.30 


8.11 


Osha & Galche 


5.31 


10.10 


4.59 


15.81 


0.53 


75.92 


1.09 


Osha & Bedala 


6.01 


2.49 


9.14 


14.41 


2.67 


21.47 


12.09 


Osha & Gamana 


0.33 


1.76 


0.87 


21.12 


1.37 


71.95 


14.64 


Osha & Mardos 


8.62 


11.09 


3.77 


17.57 


4.08 


97.98 


7.97 






353 



Table C-54 continued. 



Osha & Hagay 


4.45 


16.5 


2.18 


13.47 


7.66 


9.61 





Osha & Chamo 


1.85 


0.16 


2.28 


12.09 


2.18 


25.48 


5.36 


Galche & Bedala 


2.01 


5.07 


2.01 


3.69 


13.06 


37.97 


2.36 


Galche & 
Gamana 


5.17 


9.06 


4.12 


3.48 


9.86 


5.92 


1.06 


Galche & Mardos 


2.70 


1.66 


1.01 





17.62 


12.17 


1.06 


Galche & Hagay 


7.4 


19.37 


5.11 


2.1 


17.17 


36.78 


0.99 


Galche & Chamo 


3.93 


6.83 


4.86 


1.32 


7.47 


27.47 


0.67 


Bedala &Gamana 


5.32 


3.41 


7.81 


8.15 


5.37 


42.95 


3.7 


Bedala & Mardos 


0.87 


7.21 


3.71 


4.15 


37.72 


51.50 


3.11 


Bedala & Hagay 


9.04 


12.65 


9.18 


5.43 


15.09 


7.52 


7.46 


Bedala & Chamo 


3.39 


2.11 


8.61 


1.64 


0.21 


6.24 


3.66 


Gamana&Mardos 


6.73 


10.70 


3.68 


3.87 


39.08 


0.02 





Gamana & Hagay 


4.26 


10.58 


1.04 





15.91 


41.91 


5.11 


Gamana &Chamo 


1.45 


1.04 


1.26 


4.48 


2.80 


31.57 


1 


Mardos & Hagay 


11.7 


20.06 


4.83 


2.48 


29.62 


48.94 


4.6 


Mardos & Chamo 


3.44 


8.711 


4.69 


1.52 


20.51 


38.22 


0.85 


Hagay & Chamo 


5.01 


9.95 


0.34 


3.25 


11.59 


11.69 


3.47 



Table C-55: Eeyahoo individual unused scraper mean measurements and variance. 



Individual 


J3 
B 

1 
■ 
E 

m 


JS 
a 

M 

C 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thickness 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Retouch 
Length 


Arba 
(n=23) 


2.69 
(0.33) 


3.65 
(0.86) 


1.32 
(0.19) 


0.32 
(0.02) 


0.78 
(0.06) 


0.10 
(0) 


0.13 
(0.03) 


Amaylo 
(n=27) 


2.52 
(0.36) 


2.96 
(0.38) 


.94 
(0.14) 


0.34 
(0.01) 


0.90 
(0.12) 


0.12 
(0) 


0.22 
(0.03) 


Awesto 
(n=28) 


2.5 
(0.44) 


2.89 
(0.49) 


1.14 
(0.13) 


0.36 

(0.04) 


0.92 
(0.12) 


0.13 
(0) 


0.26 
(0.03) 


Anko 
(n=19) 


4 
(0.95) 


4.78 
(1.26) 


1.64 
(0.19) 


0.54 
(0.12) 


0.86 
(0.03) 


0.12 
(0.01) 


0.42 
(0.17) 



354 

Table C-56: Eeyahoo t-test results for unused scraper (T-critical is 2.00, bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Individual 


JS 

■ 
E 

pa 


m 

B 

M 

e 


Proximal 
Thickness 


1 o - 

Q H a 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


§ 9 

Si J 


Arba& 
Amaylo 


1.67 


3.74 


7.64 


3.19 


4.53 


33.02 


11.04 


Arba& 
Awesto 


1.67 


3.88 


3.8 


4.5 


5.01 


32.36 


14.36 


Arba& 
Anko 


6.2 


3.43 


5.26 


8.59 


5.38 


15.29 


8.42 


Amaylo & 
Awesto 


0.16 


0.52 


5.45 


3.07 


0.63 


9.82 


4.45 


Amaylo & 
Anko 


7.39 


7.06 


13.8 


8.72 


1.46 


3.36 


6.22 


Awesto & 
Anko 


7.31 


7.13 


10.59 


7.43 


2.06 


1.53 


5.09 



Table C-57: Patela individual unused scraper measurements and variance. 



Individual 


JS 

i 


JS 

B 

■ 

e 

B 


Proximal 
Thickness 


9 

5 H 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


s S 

o 9 

o a 
04 - 


Darsa 

(n=26) 


2.28 
(0.21) 


2.85 
(0.27) 


0.28 
(0.01) 


0.97 

(0.12) 


0.82 
(0.03) 


0.15 
(0.05) 


0.23 
(0.01) 


Garbo 

(n=21) 


2.11 
(0.16) 


2.66 

(0.47) 


0.88 
(0.09) 


0.26 
(0) 


0.87 
(0.04) 


0.14 
(0) 


0.13 

(0.02) 


Gaga 

(n=22) 


2.39 
(0.25) 


2.95 
(0.33) 


1.13 
(0.14) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


0.87 

(0.25) 


0.10 

(0) 


0.14 
(0.01) 


Tina 

(n=22) 


2.35 
(0.37) 


2.78 
(0.39) 


1.08 
(0.21) 


0.36 
(0.01) 


1.00 
(0.09) 


0.12 
(0) 


0.24 
(0.03) 


Tinko 
(n=19) 


2.2 
(0.35) 


2.71 
(0.24) 


1.05 

(0.82) 


0.25 
(0.01) 


0.82 
(0.02) 


0.10 

(0) 


0.19 

(0.03) 


Unkay 
(n=24) 


2.68 
(0.78) 


2.80 
(0.94) 


1.0 

(0.22) 


0.32 
(0.01) 


0.82 
(0.04) 


0.10 

(0) 


0.21 
(0.06) 


Arka 
(11=25) 


2.24 
(0.16) 


2.8 
(0.36) 


0.84 
(0.09) 


0.34 
(0.01) 


0.82 
(0.03) 


0.16 
(0.01) 


0.16 
(0.02) 


Abata 

(n=23) 


2.07 
(0.18) 


2.48 
(0.39) 


0.38 
(0.01) 


0.87 
(0.24) 


0.87 
(0.05) 


0.15 

(0) 


0.05 

(0) 



"able C-57 continued. 












35! 


Basa 
(n=24) 


2.05 
(.28) 


2.54 
(0.44) 


0.83 
(0.12) 


0.32 
(0.01) 


0.83 
(0.04) 


0.12 
(0) 


0.07 
(0.01) 


Garcho 
(n=30) 


2.03 
(0.24) 


2.66 
(0.34) 


0.89 
(0.09) 


0.26 
(0.01) 


0.84 
(0.05) 


0.13 

(0) 


0.14 
(0.01) 


Tsoma 
(n=22) 


2.01 
(0.30) 


2.37 
(0.26) 


0.87 
(0.15) 


0.29 
(0.04) 


0.88 
(0.07) 


0.12 
(0.01) 


0.14 
(0.01) 


Uma 
(n=27) 


2.35 
(0.34) 


2.79 
(0.36) 


1.05 
(0.14) 


0.27 
(0) 


0.79 
(0.04) 


0.10 
(0) 


0.04 
(0) 



Table C-58: Patela t-test results for unused scrapers (T-critical is 2.20, bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Individual 


-= 
a 

1 
- 


B 
DC 

e 



n2 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thickness 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Retouch 
Length 


Gaga- Tina 


0.42 


1.62 


0.93 


10.49 


3.89 


1.47 


14.83 


Gaga- Uma 


0.46 


1.72 


1.99 


9.10 


0.89 


5.53 


52.09 


Gaga-Unkay 


1.67 


0.72 


2.37 


2.17 


8.41 


3.46 


5.40 


Gaga-Garbo 


4.20 


2.34 


6.93 


10.29 


0.52 


4.41 


2.09 


Gaga-Tinko 


2.02 


2.70 


0.45 


11.85 


0.03 


5.02 


5.67 


Gaga-Darsa 


1.66 


1.22 


4.26 


15.70 


0.77 


0.89 


31.07 


Gaga-Abata 


3.40 


3.17 


4.41 


10.68 


3.47 


0.48 


30.18 


Gaga-Arka 


2.48 


1.54 


8.24 


6.62 


0.15 


2.84 


4.24 


Gaga-Basa 


4.33 


3.58 


7.56 


2.17 


0.29 


1.90 


23.72 


Gaga-Tsoma 


4.56 


6.56 


5.94 


2.10 


3.35 


2.58 


0.00 


Gaga-Garcho 


5.25 


3.16 


7.22 


11.85 


3.37 


6.18 


0.00 


Tina- Uma 


0.00 


0.07 


0.60 


31.34 


0.06 


75.74 


34.73 


Tina-Unkay 


1.81 


0.11 


1.26 


13.55 


6.05 


33.79 


2.11 


Tina-Garbo 


2.62 


0.83 


4.02 


32.78 


4.62 


53.46 


14.08 


Tina-Tinko 


1.33 


0.64 


0.17 


35.12 


3.35 


62.02 


4.56 


Tina-Darsa 


0.82 


0.76 


2.27 


6.90 


4.81 


7.77 


1.60 


Tina-Abata 


2.09 


1.90 


3.12 


0.00 


0.27 


15.87 


28.76 


Tina-Arka 


1.35 


0.21 


5.10 


6.84 


3.56 


22.66 


10.87 


Tina-Basa 


3.12 


1.88 


4.81 


13.55 


3.05 


5.02 


26.24 


Tina-Tsoma 


3.35 


4.01 


3.82 


7.96 


0.71 


7.27 


14.83 


Tina-Garcho 


3.78 


1.17 


4.34 


35.63 


6.72 


74.09 


17.06 


Uma-Unkay 


2.00 


0.08 


0.98 


17.82 


2.38 


50.94 


14.74 


Uma-Garbo 


2.86 


0.99 


4.84 


3.44 


0.95 


14.06 


23.46 


Uma-Tinko 


1.46 


0.79 


0.00 


6.68 


0.83 


11.04 


19.58 


Uma-Darsa 


0.90 


0.75 


2.23 


40.03 


1.11 


21.81 


98.76 



356 



Table C-58 continued. 



Uma- 
Abata 


2.28 


2.17 


3.30 


31.72 


0.12 


105.87 


5.21 


Uma-Arka 


1.47 


0.15 


6.18 


25.22 


0.91 


76.02 


31.20 


Uma-Basa 


3.41 


2.16 


5.71 


17.82 


0.85 


61.48 


15.61 


Uraa- 
Tsoma 


3.67 


4.53 


4.34 


2.51 


0.18 


17.46 


52.09 


Uma- 
Garcho 


4.14 


1.38 


5.00 


3.77 


1.83 


9.14 


51.91 


Unkay- 
Garbo 


3.23 


0.60 


2.33 


20.08 


8.63 


28.24 


5.83 


Unkay- 
Tinko 


2.49 


0.41 


0.29 


22.80 


7.63 


42.73 


1.25 


Unkay- 
Darsa 


2.52 


0.25 


0.60 


21.20 


9.47 


14.64 


1.68 


Unkay- 
Abata 


3.06 


1.38 


1.94 


13.71 


6.27 


56.01 


12.62 


Unkay- 
Arka 


2.76 


0.01 


3.30 


7.00 


8.58 


16.74 


3.95 


Unkay- 
Basa 


3.72 


1.21 


3.13 


0.00 


8.07 


25.29 


11.28 


Unkay- 
Tsoma 


3.78 


2.07 


2.32 


3.56 


4.75 


4.83 


5.40 


Unkay- 
Garcho 


4.32 


0.78 


2.45 


21.91 


11.12 


48.89 


6.30 


Garbo- 
Tinko 


0.94 


0.36 


0.95 


3.16 


0.38 


17.74 


6.09 


Garbo- 
Darsa 


2.88 


1.68 


2.85 


40.90 


0.31 


17.62 


22.31 


Garbo- 
Abata 


0.97 


1.12 


0.18 


33.13 


4.12 


76.54 


17.01 


Garbo- 
Arka 


2.53 


1.09 


1.41 


27.03 


0.62 


46.21 


5.07 


Garbo- 
Basa 


1.01 


0.89 


1.25 


20.08 


0.70 


43.48 


12.97 


Garbo- 
Tsoma 


1.49 


2.55 


0.26 


3.34 


3.68 


12.24 


2.09 


Garbo- 
Garcho 


1.50 


0.09 


0.37 


0.00 


3.13 


18.36 


2.36 


Tinko- 
Darsa 


0.96 


1.81 


0.49 


43.07 


0.61 


19.51 


4.91 


Tinko- 

Abata 


0.36 


1.52 


1.00 


35.48 


3.02 


83.28 


16.22 












Table C-58 continued. 



357 



Tinko- 
Arka 


0.51 


0.94 


1.27 


29.57 


0.16 


58.97 


3.26 


Tinko- 
Basa 


1.56 


1.48 


1.24 


22.80 


0.28 


52.62 


14.19 


Tinko- 
Tsoma 


1.87 


4.31 


1.01 


4.24 


3.01 


16.97 


5.67 


Tinko- 
Garcho 


2.02 


0.60 


1.06 


3.41 


2.90 


2.92 


6.57 


Darsa- 
Abata 


1.96 


2.75 


1.88 


6.99 


4.35 


4.55 


59.39 


Darsa- 
Arka 


0.76 


0.57 


4.19 


14.28 


0.87 


12.60 


13.63 


Darsa- 
Basa 


3.30 


3.00 


3.83 


21.20 


0.93 


9.31 


52.99 


Darsa- 
Tsoma 


3.65 


6.25 


2.57 


11.09 


4.06 


10.62 


27.62 


Darsa- 
Garcho 


4.12 


2.32 


2.72 


44.79 


2.93 


24.07 


29.86 


Abata- 
Arka 


3.46 


2.20 


0.57 


6.92 


3.20 


44.97 


23.77 


Abata- 
Basa 


0.29 


0.43 


0.55 


13.71 


2.75 


20.32 


6.85 


Abata- 
Tsoma 


0.82 


0.73 


0.00 


8.14 


0.90 


14.06 


30.18 


Abata- 
Garcho 


0.67 


1.32 


0.41 


36.08 


6.35 


100.00 


32.47 


Arka- 
Basa 


2.93 


2.23 


0.00 


7.00 


0.15 


14.68 


18.90 


Arka- 
Tsoma 


3.34 


4.63 


0.82 


6.05 


3.29 


0.34 


42.42 


Arka- 
Garcho 


3.73 


1.51 


1.85 


29.54 


3.41 


68.46 


45.79 


Basa- 
Tsoma 


0.35 


1.62 


0.75 


3.56 


2.97 


5.15 


23.72 


Basa- 
Garcho 


0.14 


1.05 


1.67 


21.91 


3.26 


62.86 


25.56 


Tsoma- 

Garcho 


0.27 


3.25 


0.58 


5.12 


5.79 


20.32 


0.00 



358 



Table C-59: Mogesa individual used-up scraper mean measurements and variance. 



Individual 


J3 
a 

C 

m 


a 
9 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thickness 


Breadth/ 
Length Ratio 


Thickness/ 
Length Ratio 


Retouch 
Length 


Buta 
(n=70) 


2.56 
(0.37) 


3.03 
(0.33) 


1.11 
(0.08) 


0.91 
(0.10) 


0.80 
(0.02) 


0.33 
(0.01) 


1.06 
(0.11) 


Tesfy 
(n=50) 


2.49 
(0.11) 


3.18 
(0.29) 


1.25 
(0.06) 


0.99 
(0.06) 


0.87 
(0.04) 


0.32 
(0.02) 


1.04 
(0.06) 


Goa 
(n=26) 


2.52 
(0.17) 


3.15 
(0.28) 


1.22 
(0.12) 


0.87 
(0.08) 


0.82 
(0.04) 


0.29 
(0.02) 


0.97 
(0.12) 


Mokano 
(n=22) 


2.37 
(0.04) 


2.86 
(0.15) 


1.15 
(0.09) 


0.96 

(0.12) 


0.84 
(0.01) 


0.35 
(0.02) 


0.90 
(0.06) 


Mola 
(n=21) 


2.41 
(0.07) 


3.51 
(0.37) 


1.19 
(0.10) 


0.91 
(0.14) 


0.70 
(0.02) 


0.26 
(0.01) 


0.98 
(0.11) 


Yonja 

(n=21) 


2.5 
(0.11) 


3.29 
(0.28) 


1.11 
(0.07) 


0.8 
(0.05) 


0.78 
(0.04) 


0.25 
(0.1) 


1.09 
(0.09) 


Yeka 
(n=68) 


2.62 
(0.07) 


2.47 
(0.08) 


1.01 
(0.06) 


0.97 
(0.19) 


1.08 
(0.03) 


0.40 
(0.1) 


1.04 
(0.07) 











Table C-60: Mogesa t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-critical is 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 


359 

1 .96, bolded cells 






Individual 


1 
u 

m 


9 

DC 

e 


Proximal 

Thick 

ness 


Distal 
Thick 
ness 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thicknes 
s/Length 
Ratio 


Retouch 
Length 




Tesfy & Buta 


4.8 


2.02 


10.37 


4.83 


12.13 


2.88 


1.01 


Tesfy & Goa 


2.16 


0.45 


3.02 


7.2 


3.35 


12.90 


3.07 


Tesfy & Mokano 


3.51 


4.8 


8.8 


1.3 


7.97 


5.33 


2.81 


Tesfy & Mola 


1.39 


3.98 


1.75 


3.25 


19.23 


18.97 


3.16 


Tesfy & Yonja 


1.81 


1.37 


5.85 


12.5 


2.58 


22.39 


8.4 


Tesfy &Yeka 


10.49 


19.29 


13.43 


1.49 


63.15 


30.07 


0.25 


Buta & Goa 


1.17 


1.18 


4.12 


1.81 


5.73 


8.48 


3.04 


Buta & Mokano 


6.56 


2.77 


0.03 


1.99 


4.16 


6.76 


1.31 


Buta & Mola 


4.71 


5.32 


4.6 





20.03 


13.39 


2.98 


Buta & Yonja 


1.82 


2.8 


1.63 


4.88 


9.57 


15.96 


5.86 


Buta & Yeka 


3.37 


14.68 


1.05 


4.25 


37.86 


31.16 


0.90 


Goa & Mokano 


3.9 


4.28 


3.21 


3.26 


1.88 


14.24 


3.67 


Goa & Mola 


2.5 


3.82 


0.69 


1.22 


13.87 


7.52 


0.16 


Goa & Yonja 


0.43 


1.65 


1.7 


3.73 


3.70 


11.33 


2.59 


Goa & Yeka 


3.9 


18.57 


5.48 


6.6 


38.29 


41.23 


3.26 


Mokano & Mola 


2.57 


7.61 


3.48 


1.3 


32.14 


18.51 


3.63 


Mokano & Yonja 


5.21 


6.1 


1.41 


6.04 


6.84 


21.22 


7.35 


Mokano & Yeka 


15.67 


16.16 


0.78 


0.53 


42.87 


14.99 


2.5 


Mola & Yonja 


2.9 


2.22 


2.15 


3.43 


9.32 


3.54 


2.29 


Mola & Yeka 


11.38 


22.24 


5.88 


2.81 


63.26 


46.47 


3.3 


Yonja & Yeka 


5.82 


21.84 


2.69 


11.81 


41.83 


50.84 


7.79 























360 



Table C-61: Amure individual used-up scraper mean measurements and variance. 



Individual 


JS 
73 

1 
B 

E 

m 


WO 

■ 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thickness 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio) 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Retouch 
Length 


Hanicha 

(n=44) 


2.31 
(.07) 


2.76 
(.17) 


1.08 
(.08) 


0.79 
(.07) 


0.85 
(.02) 


0.30 
(.01) 


0.92 
(.11) 


Osha 

(n=28) 


2.34 
(.11) 


2.66 
(.07) 


1.11 
(.07) 


0.88 
(.10) 


0.89 
(.04) 


0.33 

(.02) 


0.89 
(.11) 


Galche 

(n=33) 


2.35 
(.08) 


2.53 
(.18) 


1.03 
(.05) 


0.92 
(.06) 


0.95 
(-03) 


0.37 
(.02) 


1.08 
(.07) 


Bedala 

(n=30) 


2.4 
(.11) 


2.72 
(.16) 


1.12 
(.08) 


0.99 
(.08) 


0.90 
(.04) 


0.37 
(.01) 


1.19 
(.15) 


Gamana 
(n=18) 


2.41 
(.18) 


2.95 
(.25) 


1.1 
(.15) 


0.83 
(.09) 


0.84 
(.04) 


0.29 
(.01) 


0.86 
(.09) 


Mardos 

(n=25) 


1.98 
(.08) 


2.5 
(.20) 


1.18 
(.10) 


0.86 
(.07) 


0.82 
(.04) 


0.36 
(.02) 


0.89 
(.07) 


Hagay 
(n=14) 


2.26 
(.13) 


2.35 
(.24) 


1.11 
(.07) 


1.01 
(.06) 


1.02 
(.12) 


0.46 
(-04) 


1.07 
(.05) 


Chamo 
(n=19) 


2.45 
(1.1) 


2.54 
(.29) 


1.14 
(.09) 


0.98 
(.08) 


0.99 
(.03) 


0.40 
(.01) 


1.01 
(.08) 



Table C-62: Amure t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-critical is 1 .96, bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Individual 


JS 
a 

73 

1 
E 


JS 
a 

DC 

C 
B 

j 


P *s ■ 

0* H C 


Q H 


1 Of) 

CQ _ 


J- r- 

6 £ 

c W) 

■a b 


o e* 
~ e 

Pi - 


Hanicha & 
Osha 


1.42 


2.91 


1.63 


4.49 


5.46 


10.67 


1.13 


Hanicha & 
Galche 


2.33 


5.50 


3.16 


8.56 


14.6 



22.71 


7.31 


Hanicha & 
Bedala 


4.30 


0.85 


2.11 


11.39 


6.69 


24.08 


8.93 


Hanicha & 
Gamana 


3.17 


3.52 


0.68 


1.88 


1.85 


2.69 


2.05 


Hanicha & 
Mardos 


17.87 


3.41 


4.55 


3.99 


4.72 


16.61 


1.23 


Hanicha & 
Hagay 


1.86 


6.94 


1.26 


10.57 


8.66 


24.86 


4.92 



Table C-62 continued. 












361 






Hanicha 
& Chamo 


6.08 


3.71 


3.07 


9.47 


18.49 


27.27 


3.57 




Osha & Galche 


0.41 


3.38 


5.19 


1.93 


5.98 


9.80 


8.17 


Osha & Bedala 


2.08 


2.02 


0.51 


4.64 


1.00 


10.12 


8.63 


Osha& 
Gamana 


1.64 


5.93 


0.31 


1.72 


4.63 


10.65 


0.97 


Osha& 
Mardos 


13.48 


1.84 


2.98 


0.83 


7.10 


5.70 


0.00 


Osha & Hagay 


2.09 


6.22 


0.00 


4.46 


4.99 


15.55 


5.80 


Osha&Chamo 


3.36 


2.08 


1.71 


3.64 


9.13 


14.29 


4.41 


Galche & 
Bedala 


2.08 


4.38 


5.41 


3.95 


4.74 


0.87 


3.79 


Galche & 
Gamana 


1.65 


6.86 


2.46 


4.28 


10.32 


19.53 


9.68 


Galche & 
Mardos 


17.44 


0.39 


7.48 


3.51 


13.66 


3.15 


10.24 


Galche & 
Hagay 


2.91 


2.84 


4.44 


4.70 


3.03 


10.92 


0.48 


Galche & 
Chamo 


1.58 


0.05 


6.20 


3.07 


4.74 


4.66 


2.82 


Bedala & 
Gamana 


0.24 


3.87 


0.60 


6.40 


5.36 


22.58 


8.45 




Bedala & 
Mardos 


15.90 


2.55 


2.47 


6.35 


7.92 


2.71 


9.19 




Bedala & 
Hagay 


3.71 


6.08 


0.40 


0.83 


4.63 


11.81 


2.90 


Bedala & 
Chamo 


1.55 


2.87 


1.22 


0.43 


7.92 


6.51 


4.54 


Gamana & 
Mardos 


10.61 


3.86 


2.10 


1.23 


1.63 


14.83 


1.23 


Gamana & 
Hagay 


2.63 


6.84 


0.23 


6.44 


5.91 


18.61 


7.82 


Gamana & 
Chamo 


0.82 


4.60 


1.24 


5.36 


12.26 


26.44 


5.72 


Mardos & 
Hagay 


8.35 


1.16 


2.31 


6.74 


7.68 


11.31 


8.47 


Mardos & 
Chamo 


16.42 


0.31 


1.03 


5.30 


15.29 


7.24 


5.74 


Hagay & 
Chamo 


4.54 


1.93 


1.73 


1.18 


0.75 


7.13 


2.06 























362 



Table C-63: Eeyahoo individual used-up scraper mean measurements and variance. 



Individual 


M 

a 

I 

s 

E 
PQ 


A 
a 

m 

c 

B 


Proximal 
Thickness 


Distal 
Thickness 


Breadth/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


Retouch 
Length 


Arba 
(n=50) 


2.74 
(0.29) 


2.45 
(0.25) 


1.25 
(0.14) 


0.84 
(0.09) 


0.86 
(0.07) 


0.25 
(0.01) 


0.87 
(0.14) 


Amaylo 
(n=57) 


2.62 
(0.26) 


3.27 
(0.49) 


1.15 
(0.17) 


0.76 
(0.09) 


0.83 

(0.04) 


0.24 
(0.01) 


0.89 
(0.12) 


Awesto 
(n=67) 


2.01 
(0.11) 


3.29 
(0.37) 


0.71 
(0.11) 


0.94 
(0.16) 


0.88 
(0.05) 


0.26 
(0.02) 


0.62 
(0.09) 


Anko 

1(0*11) 


3.43 
(0.23) 


2.46 
(0.49) 


1.06 
(0.16) 


1.35 
(0.05) 


1.45 
(0.36) 


0.12 
(0.01) 


1.00 
(0.09) 



Table C-64: Eeyahoo t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-critical is 2.00, bolded cells 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 



Individual 


a 

1 
■ 

E 
03 


WD 

c 


Proximal 
Thickness 


■ 
B 
a 

1 2 

q h 


Breadth/ 
Length Ratio 


Thickness/ 
Length Ratio 


fa 

o 9 


Arba& 
Amaylo 


2.04 


118.7 
6 


3.44 


4.02 


3.12 


5.40 


0.89 


Arba& 
Awesto 


17.10 


18.33 


11.21 


12.41 


1.66 


3.11 


6.54 


Arba& 
Anko 


7.49 


0.38 


2.509 


5.41 


11.01 


53.85 


3.93 


Amaylo & 
Awesto 


16.02 


0.41 


7.05 


9.06 


5.99 


6.69 


8.5 


Amaylo & 
Anko 


9.72 


23.41 


3.93 


8.58 


13.09 


29.40 


4.02 


Awesto & 
Anko 


32.5 


6.99 


8.48 


13.52 


12.51 


23.88 


9.14 



363 



Table C-65: Patela individual used-up scraper mean measurements. The total number 
here for Patela is 4 less than in Chapter 5 because I did not include one young 
individual and his 4 scrapers here. 



Individual 


Breadth 
(variance) 


Length 
(variance) 


Proximal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


Distal 

Thickness 

(variance) 


Breadth/ 
Length Ratio 
(variance) 


Thickness/ 
Length Ratio 
(variance) 


Retouch 

Length 

(variance) 


Gaga 
(n=13) 


1.93 
(0.16) 


2.28 
(0.21) 


1.01 
(0.08) 


0.75 
(0.07) 


0.86 
(0.02) 


0.34 
(0.02) 


0.72 
(0.06) 


Tina (n=25) 


2.3 
(0.13) 


2.27 
(0.11) 


1.08 
(0.07) 


0.91 
(0.07) 


1.02 
(0.03) 


0.40 
(0.01) 


0.93 

(0.07) 


Uma(n=12) 


2.5 
(0.19) 


2.64 
(0.27) 


1.24 
(0.18) 


1.01 
(0.21) 


0.96 
(0.01) 


0.38 
(0.02) 


0.81 
(0.07) 


Unkay 
(n=28) 


1.24 
(0.18) 


2.58 
(0.43) 


1.06 
(0.09) 


0.81 
(0.07) 


1.02 
(0.07) 


0.36 
(0.03) 


1.06 
(0.27) 


Garbo 

(n=24) 


2.17 
(0.11) 


2.38 
(0.56) 


1.22 
(0.23) 


0.76 
(0.07) 


0.97 
(0.06) 


0.34 
(0.01) 


1.05 
(0.17) 


Tinko 
(n=17) 


2.23 
(0.14) 


2.47 
(0.35) 


1.06 
(0.09) 


0.76 

(0.13) 


0.94 
(0.05) 


0.31 
(0.02) 


1.06 
(0.27) 


Darsa 

(n=24) 


2.27 
(0.18) 


2.41 
(0.25) 


1.03 
(0.12) 


0.84 
(0.11) 


0.96 
(0.03) 


0.37 
(0.03) 


0.82 
(0.07) 


Abata 
(n=16) 


2.37 
(0.26) 


2.3 
(0.12) 


1.04 
(0.06) 


0.81 
(0.12) 


1.05 
(0.07) 


0.36 
(0.03) 


0.81 
(0.13) 


Arka 
(n=25) 


2.36 
(0.21) 


2.68 
(0.48) 


0.93 
(0.06) 


0.62 

(0.07) 


0.92 
(0.05) 


0.26 
(0.02) 


0.69 
(0.09) 


Basa 
(n=7) 


2.11 
(0.13) 


2.26 
(0.19) 


1.1 

(0.15) 


0.9 
(0.13) 


0.95 
(0.02) 


0.41 
(0.03) 


0.86 
(0.19) 


Tsoma 
(n=14) 


2.01 
(0.09) 


2.11 
(0.12) 


0.96 
(0.05) 


0.82 
(0.07) 


0.97 

(0.03) 


0.39 
(0.01) 


0.93 
(0.10) 



Table C-66: Patela t-test results for used-up scrapers (T-critical is 
are significant at the 0.05 confidence level). 


364 
2.04, bolded cells 






Individual 


B 

73 

I 
B 

E 
■ 


a 

s 

s 


Proximal 
Thickness 


n 

VI 

B 

a 

S H 


Breadth/Le 
ngth Ratio 


Thickness/ 

Length 

Ratio 


s ** 




Gaga- Tina 


7.90 


0.12 


31.44 


6.68 


17.93 


13.38 


9.19 


Gaga- 
Uma 


8.51 


3.81 


3.10 


4.22 


12.51 


4.88 


6.58 


Gaga- 

Unkay 


12.00 


2.42 


1.71 


2.55 


8.30 


1.66 


4.46 


Gaga- 
Garbo 


5.57 


0.69 


0.86 


0.41 


6.47 


1.17 


3.59 


Gaga- 
Tinko 


5.83 


1.75 


1.04 


0.25 


5.38 


4.35 


3.50 


Gaga- 
Darsa 


5.80 


1.59 


0.54 


2.66 


11.09 


2.70 


4.79 


Gaga- 
Abata 


5.40 


0.37 


1.15 


1.59 


9.07 


1.67 


1.92 


Gaga-Arka 


6.70 


2.90 


3.47 


5.43 


4.40 


11.10 


1.08 


Gaga-Basa 


2.67 


0.21 


1.77 


3.39 


8.28 


5.92 


2.38 


Gaga- 
Tsoma 


1.64 


2.53 


1.96 


2.60 


10.51 


8.63 


6.55 


Tina- Uma 


3.95 


6.99 


11.68 


2.17 


7.50 


5.77 


3.06 


Tina- 

Unkay 


24.31 


3.60 


33.12 


5.19 


0.35 


8.32 


2.34 


Tina- 
Garbo 


3.77 


1.04 


31.26 


7.50 


4.55 


19.95 


4.79 


Tina-Tinko 


1.42 


2.82 


25.58 


4.84 


7.35 


18.74 


3.82 


Tina-Darsa 


0.67 


2.68 


27.57 


2.67 


8.95 


5.61 


5.00 


Tina-Abata 


1.15 


1.14 


35.79 


3.38 


1.74 


8.36 


3.31 


Tina-Arka 


1.42 


4.29 


47.18 


14.65 


9.73 


27.59 


10.52 


Tina-Basa 


3.42 


0.40 


17.84 


0.27 


6.73 


0.85 


1.50 


Tina- 
Tsoma 


7.22 


6.86 


39.51 


3.85 


6.24 


2.98 


0.00 


Uma- 
Unkay 


20.12 


0.41 


3.19 


4.55 


3.05 


2.43 


0.12 


Uma- 
Garbo 


6.82 


1.48 


4.27 


5.33 


0.43 


7.83 


5.34 


Uma- 
Tinko 


4.41 


1.41 


2.60 


3.96 


1.49 


8.81 


4.39 


Uma-Darsa 


3.70 


2.55 


3.28 


3.21 


0.50 


0.96 


5.53 





















Table C-66 continued. 



365 



Uma- 
Abata 


1.57 


4.53 


3.01 


3.19 


4.32 


2.40 


3.83 


Uma-Arka 


1.95 


0.31 


5.98 


8.46 


2.92 


15.13 


8.47 


Uma-Basa 


4.91 


3.31 


1.23 


1.25 


1.53 


2.85 


2.21 


Uma- 
Tsoma 


8.58 


6.69 


4.13 


3.19 


0.71 


2.65 


2.23 


Unkay- 
Garbo 


22.01 


1.43 


2.88 


2.57 


3.03 


3.23 


4.16 


Unkay- 
Tinko 


19.56 


0.92 


0.32 


1.68 


4.36 


5.86 


3.36 


Unkay- 
Darsa 


20.57 


1.76 


1.03 


1.19 


4.40 


1.43 


4.05 


Unkay- 
Abata 


17.00 


2.56 


0.79 


0.00 


1.53 


0.02 


3.37 


Unkay- 
Arka 


21.09 


0.81 


6.11 


9.86 


6.24 


13.75 


6.53 


Unkay- 
Basa 


11.97 


1.94 


0.91 


2.53 


2.78 


4.54 


1.83 


Unkay- 
Tsoma 


14.84 


3.97 


3.86 


0.44 


2.86 


4.79 


1.73 


Garbo- 
Tinko 


1.79 


0.53 


1.93 


0.00 


1.69 


4.86 


0.33 


Garbo- 
Darsa 


2.32 


0.16 


1.50 


3.01 


0.88 


4.55 


0.43 


Garbo- 
Abata 


3.36 


0.62 


1.99 


1.67 


4.18 


3.25 


0.25 


Garbo- 
Arka 


4.15 


2.00 


1.99 


7.00 


3.20 


14.11 


5.05 


Garbo- 
Basa 


1.22 


0.60 


2.34 


3.79 


0.87 


8.87 


0.77 


Garbo- 
Tsoma 


4.47 


1.80 


0.64 


2.55 


0.06 


13.19 


3.49 


Tinko- 
Darsa 


0.57 


0.66 


0.53 


2.13 


1.50 


6.54 


0.00 


Tinko- 
Abata 


1.80 


1.83 


0.30 


1.15 


5.34 


5.58 


0.43 


Tinko- 
Arka 


2.23 


1.58 


4.29 


4.52 


1.25 


7.24 


4.73 


Tinko- 
Basa 


2.11 


1.50 


0.86 


2.40 


0.50 


8.68 


0.50 


Tinko- 
Tsoma 


5.15 


3.61 


2.62 


1.55 


1.90 


12.73 


2.77 






366 



Table C-66 continued. 



Darsa- 
Abata 


1.44 


1.58 


0.31 


0.81 


6.00 


1.22 


0.54 


Darsa- 
Arka 


1.79 


2.51 


3.71 


8.39 


3.35 


13.79 


6.06 


Darsa-Basa 


2.18 


1.45 


1.29 


1.22 


0.75 


3.20 


0.63 


Darsa- 
Tsoma 


4.96 


4.08 


2.07 


0.61 


1.16 


2.91 


3.62 


Abata- 
Arka 


0.00 


3.12 


5.73 


6.42 


7.16 


12.40 


3.50 


Abata- 
Basa 


2.49 


0.65 


1.40 


1.62 


3.69 


4.25 


0.72 


Abata- 
Tsoma 


4.87 


4.26 


3.93 


0.27 


4.16 


4.87 


2.80 


Arka-Basa 


3.09 


2.28 


4.63 


7.66 


1.55 


13.41 


2.07 


Arka- 
Tsoma 


6.02 


4.33 


1.59 


8.56 


3.41 


19.39 


4.38 


Basa- 
Tsoma 


1.96 


2.14 


3.22 


1.85 


1.53 


1.78 


1.08 



Table C-67: Chi-square test comparing age and presence of spurs. 





Old and 
Young 


Others 




Spurs 


50 


56 


106 


w/o Spurs 


353 


912 


1265 




403 


968 


1371 


















observed 


Expected 






50 


31.1583 


11.394 




353 


371.842 


0.9547 




56 


74.8417 


4.7435 




912 


893.158 


0.3975 








17.49 












Degrees of 
freedom 


1 






Significance level at0.05 = 3.84 






Since 17.49 is greater than 3.84 it is significant 



367 



Table C-68: Chi-square test comparing age and breaking frequency. 





Young 


Middle aged /Old 




Broken 


30 


12 


42 


Unbroken 


150 


682 


832 




180 


694 


874 










observed 


Expected 






30 


8.64988558 


52.6975046 




150 


171.350114 


2.66021057 




12 


33.3501144 


13.6679407 




682 


660.649886 


0.68996816 








69.71562 












Degrees of 
freedom 


1 






Significance level at0.05 = 3.84 




Since 69.72 is greater than 3.84 than the differences are significant 



Table C-69: Comparison of experience and standard deviation for unused scrapers of 
individuals (formula = standard deviation/mean x 100). 



Individual 


Years 
Experience 


Length 
SD 


Breadth 
SD 


Proximal 

Thickness 

SD 


Distal 

Thickness 

SD 


Chamo 


2 


15.92 


17.92 


33.64 


51.35 


Goa 


2 


12.66 


13.20 


21.82 


38.29 


Abata 


3 


25.42 


19.82 


56.32 


33.33 


Gaga 


3 


19.29 


20.92 


32.74 


45.16 


Mardos 


3 


13.39 


10.32 


26.45 


44.44 


Uma 


3 


21.18 


25.11 


36.19 


25.93 


Yonja 


4 


11.91 


14.41 


23.33 


30.33 


Arba 


5 


25.49 


21.59 


34.16 


43.51 


Bedala 


5 


15.21 


16.86 


21.71 


36.84 


Galche 


5 


12.68 


21.27 


26.61 


33.33 


Mola 


5 


12.67 


9.34 


22.03 


32.23 


Tsoma 


6 


21.49 


27.36 


43.68 


65.52 


Awesto 


7 


24.51 


26.40 


30.63 


52.67 


Osha 


7 


10.03 


13.73 


22.12 


33.33 


Tinko 


7 


18.08 


26.82 


86.67 


40.00 


Tesfy 


8 


8.55 


12.23 


23.82 


27.78 


Amaylo 


9 


20.95 


23.82 


40.24 


35.60 



368 



Table C-69 continued. 



Garbo 


9 


25.87 


18.40 


34.09 


30.77 


Unkay 


9 


34.62 


32.84 


47.00 


37.50 


Basa 


10 


25.92 


25.85 


40.48 


34.38 


Tina 


12 


22.68 


25.96 


42.59 


33.33 


Gamana 


15 


14.29 


15.81 


29.73 


44.12 


Darsa 


20 


18.25 


20.18 


36.08 


31.58 


Hagay 


20 


15.22 


17.35 


30.56 


58.82 


Mokano 


20 


14.86 


11.28 


23.24 


25.58 


Arka 


30 


21.43 


17.86 


36.90 


23.53 


Buta 


30 


12.15 


13.40 


23.48 


25.10 


Garcho 


35 


22.21 


24.14 


34.83 


42.31 


Yeka 


35 


13.73 


12.22 


19.80 


34.21 


Hanicha 


40 


19.14 


16.74 


31.25 


48.28 



Table 70: Comparison of experience and standard deviation for used-up scrapers of 
individuals. 



Individual 


Years 
Experience 


Length 
SD 


Breadth 
SD 


Proximal 

Thickness 

SD 


Distal 

Thickness 

SD 


Chamo 


2 


21.29 


13.47 


26.96 


27.55 


Goa 


2 


16.83 


16.67 


26.75 


32.05 


Abata 


3 


15.22 


21.52 


49.04 


41.98 


Gaga 


3 


20.20 


20.21 


28.71 


36.00 


Mardos 


3 


18.00 


14.14 


27.12 


30.23 


Uma 


3 


19.68 


17.53 


38.52 


44.55 


Yonja 


4 


16.13 


13.20 


25.27 


27.50 


Arba 


5 


18.54 


19.74 


29.55 


37.08 


Bedala 


5 


14.69 


13.75 


25.00 


29.29 


Galche 


5 


16.97 


11.91 


22.33 


26.09 


Mola 


5 


17.10 


11.18 


28.71 


41.56 


Tsoma 


6 


18.92 


15.92 


33.33 


32.93 


Awesto 


7 


20.41 


15.88 


42.61 


46.48 


Osha 


7 


10.16 


14.10 


24.32 


36.36 


Tinko 


7 


23.88 


16.52 


32.38 


48.68 


Tesfy 


8 


16.97 


13.06 


19.17 


25.15 


Amaylo 


9 


21.71 


19.41 


35.68 


39.22 


Garbo 


9 


31.40 


15.21 


33.67 


34.21 


Unkay 


9 


25.52 


14.52 


29.25 


33.33 



Table 70 continued 



369 



Basa 


10 


19.49 


17.54 


35.45 


41.11 


Tina 


12 


14.96 


15.65 


15.00 


28.57 


Gamana 


15 


16.95 


17.84 


35.45 


36.14 


Darsa 


20 


20.76 


18.94 


41.75 


39.29 


Hagay 


20 


20.85 


16.37 


23.42 


23.76 


Mokano 


20 


13.62 


8.45 


23.35 


35.18 


Arka 


30 


26.04 


19.41 


26.88 


41.94 


Buta 


30 


18.60 


14.07 


25.13 


35.00 


Yeka 


35 


11.35 


11.07 


22.70 


25.60 


Hanicha 


40 


14.87 


11.26 


25.93 


34.18 






APPENDIX D 
SCRAPER GRAPHS 



4) 

I 

4» 



100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 















— 






m 


m 
















— — — 




1 













Unused (n=81 1) Used-up (n=872) 
Scraper Type 



■ Short Oval 
n Long Oval 
D Circular 
a Short Elliptic 
a Long Irregular 
D Short Irregular 
E3 Long Triangular 
a Short Triangular 
E3 Short Quadrilateral 



Figure D-l: Graph comparing the planform of unused and used-up scrapers. 



370 



371 



ft 

4) 

a, 



100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% ] 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 





mm, 




<$<#$#& 










































□ 76 to 99 percent 
■ 5 1 to 75 percent 
26 to 50 percent 
ED 1 to 25 percent 

□ None 



Unused (n=8 1 1 ) Used-up (n=872) 
Scraper Type 



Figure D-2: Graph comparing the percentage of cortex on unused and used-up scrapers. 






372 






100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 
























9 

«1 




IP 

























mnrannftm 



Unused (n=8 1 1 ) Used-up (n=872) 
Scraper Type 



Q Opposed 

□ 2 Directions Irregular 

□ Radial 

■ 1 Direction Irregular 

□ 1 Direction Convergent 
D 1 Direction Parallel 



Figure D-3: Graph comparing the dorsal scar pattern on unused and used-up scrapers. 






d 

4) 



100% 



90% 
80% 
70% 
60% -I 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 







Unused 
(n=811) 

Scraper Type 



Used-up 
(n=872) 



a Convex 


□ Concave 


E Paralleogram 


□ Sub-triangular 


id Triangular 


□ Plano-convex 


H Lenticular 


■ Biconvex 


D Irregular 



Figure D-4: Graph comparing the cross-section on unused and used-up scrapers. 



373 



I 



100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 




n 



Tutuma Zucano Tutuma Zucano 

Unused Unused Usedup Usedup 

(n=361) (n=448) (n=382) (n=492) 

Scraper Type 



■ opposed 

□ 2 direction 
irregular 

ed radial 

□ 1 direction 
irregular 

■ convergent 

Parallel 



Figure D-5: Graph comparing illustrating the dorsal scar patterns of zucano and tutuma 
scrapers. 



374 



100% 



80% 



I 

K 
«» 



60% 



40% 



20% 




Tutuma Zucano Tutuma Zucano 

Unused Unused Usedup Usedup 

(n=361) (n=448) (n=382) (n=492) 

Scraper Type 



in Long elliptical 
H Short oval 

□ Long oval 
Q Circular 

■ Short elliptical 

□ Long irregular 

■ Short irregular 

□ Long triangular 

□ Short triangular 

■ Long 

Quadrilateral 

□ Short 

quadrilateral 



Figure D-6: Graph comparing the planforms of zucano and tutuma scrapers. 



375 



4 



O 

L 

a. 



100% 



90% 



80% 



70% 



60% 




50% 



40% 



30% 



20% 



10% 



Tutuma Zucano Tutuma Zucano 

Unused Unused Usedup Usedup 

(n=361) (n=448) (n=382) (n=492) 

Scraper Type 



Q Convex 
S Concave 

■ Parallelogram 

□ Sub-Triangular 
DD Triangular 

■ Plano-convex 

□ Lenticular 

□ Biconcex 

■ Irregular 



Figure D-7: Graph comparing the cross-sections of zucano and tutuma scrapers. 



376 







Tutuma Tutuma Zucano Zucano 

Unused Usedup Unused Usedup 

(n=361) (n=382) (n=448) (n=492) 

Scraper Type 



■ Trimmed away 

■ Bulbar scar and 
plain 

Q Plain and 

partially 

trimmed 
a Bulbar scar and 

absent platform 
□ Plain 

Cortex 



Figure D-7: Graph comparing the platform locations of zucano and tutuma scrapers. 












377 



100% 




Bonke 
(n=32) 



Dorze 

(n=24) 



□ Short Quadrilateral 
n Long Triangular 

□ Short Elliptic 
Q Short Oval 



Kogo Zada 
(n=32) (n=220) 

Dere 

■ Long Quadrilateral 
□ Long Irregular 

■ Circular 



Borada 
Tutuma 
(n=178) 



Ochollo Borada 

(n=22) Zucano 

(n=559) 



Short Triangular 
□ Short Irregular 
H Long Oval 



Figure D-8: Graph comparing the planforms of dere unused scrapers. 



378 




Bonke Dorze Kogo Zada Borada Ochollo Borada 

(n=27) (n=31) (n=30) (n=292) Tutuma (n=40) Zucano 

(n=82) (n=474) 

Dere 



n Short Quadrilateral 
B Long Triangular 
Long Oval 



■ Long Quadrilateral 

■ Short Elliptic 
E9 Short Oval 



a Short Triangular 
□ Circular 



Figure D-9: Graph comparing the planforms of dere used-up scrapers. 



379 




Bonke Dorze Kogo Zada Borada Ochollo Borada 
(n=27) (n=31) (n=30) (n=292) Tutuma (n=40) Zucano 

Dere (n=82) (n=474) 



n Parallel- 1 direction □ Radial 

E3 Irregular-2 directions ■ Opposed 



Figure D-10: Graph comparing the dorsal scar of dere unused scrapers. 



380 



100% -r- 



80% 



60% 



8 

c 

£ 40% 



20% 



0% 



i 



Wl 



Wa 



Bonke Dorze Kogo Zada Borada Ochollo Borada 

(n=32) (n=24) (n=32) (n=220) Tutuma (n=22) Zucano 

(n=178) (n=559) 

Dere 



■ Parallel- 1 direction 
□ Irregular- 1 direction 
Irregular-2 directions 



E3 Convergent- 1 direction 

□ Radial 

□ Opposed 



Figure D-l 1 : Graph comparing the dorsal scar of dere used-up scrapers. 



381 




Bonke Dorze Kogo Zada Borada Ochollo Borada 

(n=27) (n=31) (n=30) (n=292) Tutuma (n=40) Zucano 

(n=82) (n=474) 

Dere 



D Irregular 
in Plano-convex 
Paralleogram 



Biconvex 

Triangular 

Concave 



□ Lenticular 

■ Sub-triangular 

□ Convex 



Figure D-12: Graph comparing the cross-section of dere unused scrapers. 









382 



100% 



80% 



60% 



■ 
B 

« 40% 



20% 



0% 



■ 



W 






ccccn 



I 




I 




Bonke Dorze Kogo Zada Borada Ochollo Borada 

(n=32) (n=24) (n=32) (n=220) Tutuma (n=22) Zucano 

(n=178) (n=559) 

Dere 



B Irregular 


■ Biconvex 


n Plano-convex 


■ Triangular 


Q Paralleogram 


□ Concave 



□ Lenticular 

Sub-triangular 

□ Convex 



Figure D-13: Graph comparing the cross-section of dere used-up scrapers. 



383 



100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 







Mogesa Amure Eeyahoo Patala 
(n=487) (n=450) (n=252) (n=494) 

Village 



■ 100 


percent 


■ 76 to 99 


percent 


□ 51 to 75 


percent 


□ 26 to 50 


percent 


Q 1 to 25 


percent 


□ None 



Figure D-14: Graph comparing cortex on unused and used-up scrapers for 
lineages/villages. 








4) 



100% 
80% 
60% 
40% 
20% 
0% 





■) 








i 




1 






i 


^^^^^^_ 



Mogesa Amure Eeyahoo Patala 
(n=209) (n=239) (n=78) (n=285) 

Village 



B Long Elliptical 
in Short Oval 

□ Long Oval 

■ Circular 

01 Short Elliptic 

■ Long Triangular 

□ Short Triangular 

□ Short Quadrilateral 



Figure D-15: Graph comparing lineage/village planforms of unused scrapers. 



384 






100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% 




Mogesa 
(n=278) 



Amure 
(n=211) 

Village 



Eeyahoo 
(n=174) 



Patala 
(n=209) 



m Long Elliptical 

■ Short Oval 

■ Long Oval 
H Circular 

ID Short Elliptic 
Q Long Irregular 
5 Short Irregular 
H Long Triangular 
Q Short Triangular 
□ Short Quadrilateral 



Figure D-16: Graph comparing the planforms of lineage/village used-up scrapers. 








Mogesa 
(n=487) 



Amure 
(n=450) 

Village 



Eeyahoo 
(n=252) 



Patala 
(n=494) 



□ Parallel- 1 direction 

■ Irregular- 1 direction 

■ Irregular-2 directions 



ID Convergent- 1 direction 
Radial 
E Opposed 



Figure D-17: Graph comparing the dorsal scars of lineage/village scrapers (unused and 
used-up). 



385 



100% 



a 

4» 

8 
4) 




Mogesa 
(n=209) 



Amure 
(n=239) 

Village 



Eeyahoo 
(n=78) 



Patala 
(n=285) 



□ Convex 

□ Concave 

■D Parallelogram 

□ Trapezoid 

□ Sub-triangular 
B Triangular 

□ Plano-convex 
a Lenticular 

b Biconvex 
■ Irregular 



Figure D-18: Graph comparing the cross-section of lineage/village unused scrapers. 



I 



100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% J 



Mogesa Amure Eeyahoo Patala 
(n=278) (n=211) (n=174) (n=209) 

Village 



□ Convex 

id Parallelogram 
h Sub-triangular 

■ Triangular 

H Plano-convex 
D Lenticular 

■ Biconvex 

□ Irregular 



Figure D-19: Graph comparing the cross-section of lineage/village used-up scrapers. 






386 



ft 

4) 

a 

4» 

Ph 




Mogesa 
(n=487) 



Amure 
(n=450) 

Village 



Eeyahoo 
(n=252) 



Patala 
(n=494) 



id Dorsal Proximal 

□ Dorsal Distal 
a Dorsal Left 

□ Dorsal Right 
a Indeterminate 

□ Ventral Proximal 
■ Ventral distal 

Q Ventral left 

□ Ventral right 



Figure D-20: Graph comparing the platform location of lineage/village scrapers (unused 
and used-up). 



387 



100% 



90% 



80% 



70% 



60% 



g 50% 

I 

£ 

40% 



30% 



20% 



10% 



0% 



I 



Mogesa Amure Eeyahoo Patala 
(n=278) (n=211) (n=174) (n=209) 

Village 



■ Dorsal & Ventral 
Distal 

□ Dorsal Distal & 
Ventral Proximal 

m Distal, Proximal & 
Right Lateral 

□ Distal, Proximal & 
Left Lateral 

□ All Sides Used 

■ Distal &Laterals 
s Distal & Right 

□ Distal & Left 

a Distal & Proximal 

□ Distal 



Figure D-21: Graph comparing the retouch location on used-up scrapers of the four 
different lineage/villages. 



APPENDIX E 
GLOSSERY 



award) as 

asha 

baso 

baira 

chancha 

chima 

chinasha 

coata 

dana 

debusha 

degala 

dere 

dogala 

dulata 

dulea 

Eka 

Gamocalay 

gata 

gatchino 

gelba katchay 

geza 

goma 

goshay 

guta 

guchay 

Halaka 

horoso 

iffee 

isha 

jima 

Kao 

katcha 

katsaro 

Ikaysaro 

ketsa 

kula kula 

Maga 



political districts designated by the national government 

me 

lowlands 

senior 

resharpening or production waste 

old or elder 

potters 

to chop 

ritual-sacrificer below the Kao 

meeting place 

hide-worker, grindstone-maker, iron smith, lowest caste group 

place, political district in this text 

exogamous moiety group 

dignitaries 

proximal end, anus 

ritual specialists below the Kao 

Gamo language 

lateral or sides 

new born 

hide-workers 

highlands 

taboo 

chert 

village 

healing and curing of open wounds 

village elder/leader 

staff 

eye 

brother and patrilineally related males of the same generation 

vertical wooden scraping frame 

a ritual scarificer of a political district 

scratch, scrap 

circumcision 

priest 

household 

healing horn 

ritual-sacrificer for village 






388 



389 



mala farmer, highest caste group, citizen or exgamous moiety group 

Maka a ritual scarificer of subdistricts 

mana potter caste group 

manacalay mana language 

Maro diviner 

mayla patron-client system 

mota subdi strict 

omo clan and lineage 

oratay new 

owdetso degala language 

sofie public ceremony and presentation 

solloa obsidian 

sucha stone 

tekata to produce scrapers 

tolo process of hanging hides on a frame 

tsoilee hand plow 

tsoma noncitzen 

tukaa stripes of hide, fat 

tutuma scraping handle with a single haft and no mastic 

Uduga a ritual sacrificer for subdistricts 

ulo stomach, ventral side of stone tool 

uncha fermented bread 

wogatchay smiths 

woga culture, tradition 

wotza to put a scraper in its haft 

zucano scraping handle with two hafts and mastic 



REFERENCES 



Abeles, M. 

1977 La Guerre Vue d' Ochollo. Revue Canadienne des Etudes Africaines 1 1 :455- 
471. 

1978 Pouvoir et Societe Chez les Ochollo dEthiopie Meridionale. Cahiers d'Etudes 
Africaines 18:293-310. 

1979 Religion, Traditional Beliefs: Interaction and Changes in a Southern Ethiopian 
Society: Ochollo (Gamu-Gofa). In Society and History in Ethiopia: The Southern 
Periphery from the 1880s to 1974, edited by D. L. Donham and W. James, pp. 
184-194, African Studies Center University of Cambridge, Cambridge. 

1981 In Search of the Monarch: Introduction of the State among the Gamo of 
Ethiopia. In Modes of Production in Africa: The Precolonial Era, edited by D. 
Crummey and C. Steward, pp. 35-67, Sage Publication, Beverly Hills. 

Abir, M. 

1970 Southern Ethiopia. In Pre-Colonial African Trade, edited by G. Richard and D. 
Birmingham, pp. 1 19-138, Oxford University Press, London. 

Aiston, G. 

1929 Chipped Stone Tools of the Aboriginal Tribes East and North-East of Lake 
Eyre, South Australia. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 
(March): 123-131. 

1930 Method of Mounting Stone Tools on Koondi: Tribes East and North-East of 
Lake Eyre. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 
(March):44-46. 

Albright, S. 

1984 Tahltan Ethnoarchaeology. Department of Archaeology Simon Fraser 
University, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Allchin, B. 

1957 Australian Stone Industries, Past and Present. Journal of the Royal 
Anthropological Institute 87: 1 15-136. 

Ammerman, A. J., and M. W. Feldman 

1974 On the Making of an Assemblage of Stone Tools. American Antiquity 39:610- 
616. 

Andresky, W. Jr. 

1994 Raw -Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American 
Antiquity 59:21-35. 

390 



391 

Annett, M. 

1977 Handedness and Cerebral Representations of Speech. In Physiological 
Variation and Its Genetic Basis, edited by J. S. Weiner, pp. 99-1 12, Taylor & 
Francis, London. 

Arnold, D. 

1989 Patterns of Learning, Residence, and Descent among Potters in Ticul, Yucatan, 
Mexico. In Archaeological Approaches to Identity, edited by S. J. Shennan, pp. 
174-184, Routledge, London. 

Arnold, J. 

1985 Economic Specialization in Prehistory: Method of Documenting the Rise of 
Lithic Craft Specialization. In Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings of the 
Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by Susan Vehik, pp. 
37-58, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Ascher, R. 

1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of 
Anthropology 17:317-325. 

Atwater, C. 

1 820 Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and other 
Western States. Archaeologia Americana: Transactions and Collections of the 
American Antiquarian Society 1 : 105-267. 

Azai's, R. P., and R. Chambard 

193 1 Cinq Annees de Recherches Archeologiques en Ethiopie. Librairie Orientaliste 
Paul Geuthner, Paris. 

Bahrey, U. 

1993 (1593) History of the Galla. In History of the Galla (Oromo) of Ethiopia, 
edited by D. N. Levine, pp. 44-55, African Sun Publishing, Oakland. 

Bamforth, D. B. 

1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 5 1 :38-50. 

Barth, F. 

1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Little Brown, Boston. 

Bartlett, E. J. 

1934 In the Land ofSheba. Cornish Brothers, Birmingham. 

Becker, C. J. 

1959 Flint Mining in Neolithic Denmark. Antiquity 22:87-92. 

Beckingham, C. F., and G. W. B. Huntingford 

1954 Some Records of Ethiopia, 1 593-1 646. Hakluyt Society, London. 

Bekele-Tesema, A., A. Birene, and B. Tenganas 

1993 Useful Trees and Shrubs for Ethiopia. SIDA Regional Soil Conservation 
UNIT RSCU Technical Handbook No. 5, Addis Ababa. 

Bent, T. 

1893 The Sacred City of the Ethiopians. Longmans, London. 



392 

B eyries, S. 

1988 Functional Variability of Lithic Sets in the Middle Paleolithic. In Upper 
Pleistocene Prehistory of Western Eurasia, edited by H. Dibble and M. White, 
pp. 213-223, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

Binford, L. R. 

1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225. 

1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American 
Antiquity 31:203-210. 

1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological 
Reasoning. American Antiquity 32: 1-12. 

1968 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by 
S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 22-49, Aldine Publishing Company, 
Chicago. 

1973 Inter-assemblage Variability-The Mousterian and the Functional Argument. In 
The Explanation of Cultural Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 227-254, 
Duckworth, London. 

1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an 
Eskimo Hunting Stand. American Antiquity 43:330-361. 

198 1 Middle Range Research and the Role of Actualistic Studies. In Ancient Men 
and Modern Myths, edited by L. Binford, pp. 21-30, Academic Press, New 
York. 

1986 An Alyawara Day: Making Men's Knives and Beyond. American Antiquity 
51:547-562. 

1989 Style of Styles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:51-67. 

Binford, L. R., and S. R. Binford 

1966 A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois 
Facies. American Anthropologist (Special Publication) 68:238-295. 

Bird, C. F. M. 

1993 Woman the Tool Maker: Evidence For Women's Use and Manufacture of 
Flaked Stone Tools in Australia and New Guinea. In Women in Archaeology: A 
Feminist Critique, edited by H. du Cros and L. Smith, pp. 22-30, The Australian 
National University, Canberra. 

Boeda, E., J. Connan, D. Dessort, S. Muhesen, N. Mercler, S. Valladas, and N. 
Tisnerat 
1996 Bitumen as a Hafting Material on Middle Paleolithic artefacts. Nature 380:336- 
338. 

Bonnichsen, R. 

1977 Models for Deriving Cultural Information from Stone Tools. National 
Museum of Canada, Ottawa. 



393 

Bordes, F. 

1961 Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134:803-810. 

1973 On the Chronology and Contemporaniety of Different Paleolithic Cultures in 
France. In The Explanation of Cultural Change, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 218- 
226, Duckworth, London. 

1977 Time and Space Limits of the Mousterian. In Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, 
edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 37-49, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 
Canberra. 

Bordes, F., and D. de Sonneville-Bordes 

1970 The Significance of Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages. World Archaeology 
2:61-73. 

Borelli, J. 

1890 Ethiopie Meridionale. Librairies-Imprimeries Reunies, Paris. 

Bourdieu, P. 

1977 Outline of A Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Brandt, S. A. 

1996 The Ethnoarchaeology of Flaked Stone Tool Use in Southern Ethiopia. 
Aspects of African Archaeology, Papers from the 10th Congress of the 
PanAfrican Association for Prehistory and Related Studies, 1996, edited by G. 
Pwitit and R. Soper, pp. 733-738, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, 
Zimbabwe. 

Brandt, S. A., and K. J. Weedman. 

1997 The Ethnoarchaeology of Hide Working and Flaked Stone Tool Use in 
Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopia in Broader Perspective: Papers of the Xllth 
International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, edited by K. Fukui, E. Kuimoto, 
and M. Shigeta, pp. 351-361, Shokado Book Sellers, Kyoto. 

Brandt, S. A., and K. J. Weedman 

2000 Hide-Working Practices and Material Culture of Southern Ethiopia: A Cross- 
cultural Comparison. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Anthropology, 
University of Florida, Gainesville. 

Brandt, S. A., K. J. Weedman, and G. Hundie 

1996 Gurage Hide Working, Stone Tool Use and Social Identity: An 
Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Essays on Gurage Language and Culture: 
Dedicated to WolfLeslau on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday November 14, 
1996, edited by G. Hudson, pp. 35-51, Harrassowitz, Verlag. 

Brew, J. O. 

1946 The Uses and Abuses of Taxonomy. Papers of the Peabody Museum of 
American Archaeology and Ethnology 21 :44-66. 

Brink, J. W. 

1978 An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. National 
Museum of Canada, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Ottawa. 



394 

Broadbent, N. D., and K. Knutsson. 

1975 An Experimental Analysis of Quartz Scrapers. Fornavannen 70:1 13-128. 

Bruce, J. 

1790 Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile. vol. Ill & V. Archibald Constable 
and Company, Edinburgh. 

Bureau, J. 

1975 Le Statut des artisans en Ethiopie. Ethiopie, la terre et les hommes (1975):38- 
44. 

1976 Note sur les Eglises du Gamo. Annales d'Ethiopie X:295-302. 

1978 Etude Diachronique de Deux Titres Gamo. Cahiers dEtudes Africanes 
18:279-291. 

1979 Notes Sur L' Histoire Contemporaine des Gamo d'Ethiopie Meridionale. 
Abbay 10:201-204. 

1981 Les Gamo d'Ethiopie : Etude du Syteme Politique. Societe d'Ethnographie, 
Paris. 

1983 La Mort Du Serpent Remarques A Propos d'une Version d'Ethiopie 
Meridonale. Abbay 12:779-784. 

1986-7 La Royaute En Question. Abbay 13:137-142. 

Burton, R. F. 

1894 First Footsteps in East Africa or An Exploration ofHarar. Tylston and 
Edwards, London. 

Butler, B. M., and E. E. May (editors) 

1984 Prehistoric Chert Exploitation: Studies from the Mid-continent. Center for 
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 2, Center for Archaeological 
Investigations Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. 

Cantwell, A. 

1979 The Functional Analysis of Scrapers: Problems, New Techniques, and 
Cautions. Lithic Technology 8:5-1 1. 

Cartledge, D. 

1995 Taming the Mountain: Human Ecology, Indigenous Knowledge, and 

Sustainable Resource Management in the Doko Gamo Society of Ethiopia. Ph.D. 
dissertation, University of Florida. 

Casey, J. 

1998 Just a Formality: The Presence of Fancy Projectile Points in a Basic Tool 
Assemblage. In Gender in African Prehistory, edited by S. Kent, pp. 83-104. 
Altamira, Walnut Creek. 

Cerulli, E. 

1956 Peoples of South-West Ethiopia and Its Borderland. International African 
Institute, London. 



395 

Chase, P. G. 

1991 Symbols and Paleolithic Artifacts: Style, Standardization, and the Imposition 
of Arbitrary Form. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1 0: 1 93-2 14. 

Childe, V. G. 

1929 The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

1953 The Constitution of Archaeology as a Science. In Science, Medicine, and 
History, edited by E. A. Underwood, pp. 3-15, Oxford University Press, 
Oxford. 

Clark, J. G. D. 

1953 Archaeological Theories and Interpretations: Old World. In Anthropology 
Today, edited by A. I. Kroeber, pp. 342-482, Chicago University Press, 
Chicago. 

1965 Traffic in Stone Axe and Adze Blades. Economic History Review 18: 1-28. 

Clark, J. D. 

1958a Certain Industries of Notched and Strangulated Scrapers in Rhodesia: Their 
Time Range and Possible Use. South African Archaeological Bulletin 13:56-66. 

1958b Some Stone Age Woodworking Tools in Southern Africa South African 
Archaeological Bulletin 13:1 44- 152. 

Clark, J. D., and M. R. Kleindienst 

1974 The Stone Age Cultural Sequence: Terminology, Typology and Raw Material. 
In Kalambo Falls Prehistoric Site: The Later Prehistoric Cultures, Vol. II, edited 
by J. D. Clark, pp. 71-106, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Clark, J. D., and H. Kurashina. 

1981 A Study of the Work of a Modern Tanner in Ethiopia and its Relevance for 
Archaeological Interpretation. In Modern Material Culture: The Archaeology of 
Us, edited by R. A. Gould and M. B. Schiffer, pp. 303-343, Academic Press, 
New York. 

Clark, J. E. 

1991 Flintknapping and Debitage Disposal among the Lacandon Maya of Chiapas, 
Mexico. In The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal, edited by E. Staski and L. 
D. Sutro, pp. 63-88, Arizona State University, Tempe. 

Clarke, D. L. 

1968 Analytical Archaeology. Metheun, London. 

1972 Models and Paradigms in Contemporary Archaeology. In Models in 
Archaeology, edited by D. L. Clarke, pp. 1-60, Methuen & Co. LTD, London. 

Close, A. E. 

1977 The Identification of Style in Lithic Artefacts from North East Africa. 
Geological Survey of Egypt, Cairo. 

1989 The Identification of Style in Lithic Artefacts. World Archaeology 10:223-236. 

7 



396 

Combes, E., and M. Tamisier 

1838 Voyage en Abyssinia, Dans le Pays des Galla, de Choa et d'ifat. vol. IV. 
Louis Desessart, Paris. 

Conkey, M. W. 

1991 Contexts of Action, Contexts for Power: Material Culture and Gender in the 
Magdalenian. In Engendering Archaeology, edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. 
Conkey, pp. 57-92, Blackwell, Oxford. 

Conkey, M., and J. Spector 

1984 Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method 
and Theory 7:1-38. 

Crabtree, D. 

1975 Comments on Lithic Technology and Experimental Archaeology. In Lithic 
Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 105- 
1 14, Mouton Publishers, The Hague. 

1982 An Introduction to Flintworking. Idaho Museum of Natural History, Pocatello, 
Idaho. 

Cross, J. R. 

1990 Specialized Production in N on- stratified Society: An Example from the Late 
Archaic in the Northeast. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Massachusetts. 

Crumley, C. 

1979 Three Locational Models; An Epistemological Assessment for Anthropology 
and Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 141-173. 

Cushing, F. H. 

1886 A Study of Pueblo Pottery as Illustrative ofZuni Culture Growth. Washington 
Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Report 4:467-521. 

Dale, L. 

1870 Stone Implements of South Africa. Cape Monthly 1 :365-366. 

de Sonneville-Bordes, D. 

1954-1956 Lexique Typologique du Paleolithique Superieur. Bulletin de la Societe 
Prehistorique Francaise 52:76-79. 

Deacon, H. J. 

1966 Note on the X-Ray of Two Mounted Implements from South Africa. Man 
1:87-90. 

Deacon, H. J., and J. Deacon. 

1980 The Hafting, Function, and Distribution of Small Convex Scrapers with an 
Example from Boomplaas Cave. South African Archaeological Bulletin 35:31-37. 

Deetz, J. 

1967 Invitation to Archaeology. Natural History Press, Washington D. C. 

1968 Cultural Patterning of Behavior as Reflected by Archaeological Materials. In 
Settlement Archaeology, edited by C. Chang, pp. 31-42, National Press Books, 
Palo Alto. 



397 

Dibble, H. L. 

1984 Interpreting Typological Variation of Middle Paleolithic Scrapers: Function, 
Style or Sequence Reduction? Journal of Field Archaeology 1 1:431-435. 

1987 The Interpretation of Middle Paleolithic Scraper Morphology. American 
Antiquity 52:109-1 17. 

Donham, D. L. 

1985 Work and Power in Maale, Ethiopia. UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor. 

1997 History, Power, Ideology: Central Issues in Marxism and Anthropology. 
University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Donley-Reid, L. W. 

1990 A Structuring Structure: The Swahili House. In Domestic Architecture and the 
Use of Space, edited by S. Kent, pp. 114-126, Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

Dunn, E. J. 

1879-80 Stone Implements of South Africa Transaction of the South African 
Philosophical Society (1879-1880):6-22. 

Dunnell, R. C. 

1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192- 
202. 

Ehret, C. 

1979 On the Antiquity of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Journal of African History 20:161- 
177. 

Elkin, A. P. 

1948 Pressure Flaking in the Northern Kimberly, Australia. Man 130:1 10-1 12. 

Ericson, J. E. 

1984 Toward the Analysis of Lithic Production Systems. In Prehistoric Quarries 
and Lithic Production, edited by J. E. Ericson and B. A. Purdy, pp. 1-10, 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Ewers, J. C. 

1930 Blackfeet Crafts. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
Washington D. C. 

Fanta, F. 

1985 The Cultural History of Borroda in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth 
Centuries. Unpublished BA thesis, Department of History, Addis Ababa 
University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Fewkes, J. 

1900 Tusayan Migration Traditions. Washington Bureau of American Ethnology, 
Washington D. C. 



398 

Feyissa, D. 

1997 The Oyda of Southwestern Ethiopia. A Study of Socio-economic Aspects of 
Village Inequality. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of History, Addis 
Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Fleming, H. C. 

1973 Recent Research in Omotic Speaking Areas. Proceedings of the First United 
States Conference on Ethiopian Studies, 1973, pp. 261-278, African Studies 
Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 

1976 Omotic Overview. In The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, edited by L. 
Bender, pp. 299-323, African Studies Center, Michigan State University, East 
Lansing. 

Flenniken, J. J., and J. C. Hagagary 

1979 Trampling as an Agency in the Formation of Edge-Damage. Northwest 
Anthropological Research Notes 13:208-214. 

Ford, J. A., and J. H. Steward. 

1954 On the Concept of Types. American Anthropologists 56:42-57. 

Forster, R. 

1 969 Economy of the Gamu Highlands. Geographical Magazine 4 1 :429-438. 

Freeman, D. 

1997 Images of Fertility: The Indigenous Concept of Power in Doko Masho, 
Southwest Ethiopia. In Ethiopia in Broader Perspectives: XIII International 
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Vol. Ill, edited by K. Fukui, E. Kurimoto, M. 
Shigeta, pp. 342-357, Shokado Book Sellers, Kyoto. 

Frison, G. C. 

1989 Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants. 
American Antiquity 54:766-784. 

Frobenius, L. 

1913 The Voice of Africa. Hutchinson & Co, London. 

Gallagher, J. P. 

1974 The Preparation of Hides with Stone Tools in South Central Ethiopia. Journal 
of Ethiopian Studies XII: 1 77- 182. 

1977a Contemporary Stone Tool Use in Ethiopia: Implications for Archaeology. 
Journal of Field Archaeology 4:407-414. 

1977b Ethnoarchaeological and Prehistoric Investigations in the Ethiopian Central 
Rift Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas. 

Gamachu, D. 

1977 Aspects of Climate and Water Budget in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University, 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 



399 

Gardin, J. 

1992 Semiotic Trends in Archaeology. In Representations in Archaeology, edited by 
J. Gardin and C. Peebles, pp. 87-106, University of Indiana Press, 
Bloomington. 

Gero, J. M. 

1991 Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone Tool Production. In Engendering 
Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey, 
pp. 163-193, Blackwell, Oxford. 

Giddens, A. 

1979 A Central Problem in Social Theory. University of California, Berkeley. 

Gifford, J. C. 

1960 The Type- Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural 
Phenomena. American Antiquity 25:341-347. 

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P., D. B. Damrosch, D. R. Damrosch, J. Pryor, and R. L. 
Thunen 
1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and 
Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 50:803-818. 

Giglioi, H. H. 

1889 On a Singular Obsidian Scraper Used at Present by Some of the Galla Tribes in 
Southern Shoa. Internationales Archives fur Ethnographie 2:212-214. 

Gilkes, P. 

1994 Recent History (Ethiopia). Africa South of the Sahara (London, Europa):353- 

357. 

Gooch, W. D. 

1 88 1 The Stone Age of South Africa. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 
1 1 , London. 

Goodale, J. C. 

1971 Tiwi Wives. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 

Goodwin, A. H. J., and C. Van Riet Lowe. 

1929 The Stone Age Cultures of South Africa. Annals of the South African 
Museum 27:1-289. 

Gould, R. A. 

1968 Living Archaeology: The Ngatatjara of Western Australia. Southwestern 
Journal of Anthropology 24: 101-121. 

1974 Some Current Problems in Ethnoarchaeology. In Ethnoarchaeology, edited by 
C. W. J. Clewlow, pp. 29-48, University of California, Los Angles. 

1977 Ethnoarchaeology: or Where Do Models Come From. In Stone Tools as 
Cultural Markers, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 162-168, Australian Institute of 
Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 

1978 Explanations in Ethnoarchaeology. University of New Mexico Press, 
Albuquerque. 



400 

1980 Living Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

1990 Recovering the Past. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Gould, R. A., D. Koster, and A. Sontz 

197 1 The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia. 
American Antiquity 36: 149-169. 

Gould, R. A., and P. J. Watson. 

1982 A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological 
Reasoning. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355-381. 

Grayson, D. K. 

1983 The Establishment of Human Antiquity. Academic Press, New York. 

Gunn, J. 

1975 Idiosyncratic Behavior in Chipping Style: Some Hypotheses and Preliminary 
Analysis. In Lithic Technology: Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by E. 
Swanson, pp. 35-61. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. 

Haaland, R. 

1987 Socio-Economic Differentiation in the Neolithic Sudan. Cambridge BAR 
International Series 350, Cambridge. 

Haberland, E. 

1981 Die Materielle Kultur Der Dizi (Sudwest-Athiopien) und Ihr Kulturhistischer 
Kontext. Paideuma 27:121-171. 

1984 Caste and Hierarchy among the Dizi (Southwest Ethiopia). Proceedings of the 
Seventh International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, edited by S. Rubenson, 
pp. 447-450, University of Lund, Sweden. 

1993 Hierarchie und Kaste. Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart. 

Hahn, T. 

1870 Die Buschmanner. Globus 18:5-10. 

Hailu, S. 

1980 Hides and Skins in Ethiopia. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of 
Economics, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Hall, R. N. 

1905 Great Zimbabwe. Methuen, London. 

Halperin, R., and J. Olmstead 

1976 To Catch a Feastgiver: Redistribution among the Dorze of Ethiopia. Africa 
46:146-165. 

Hambley, W. D. 

1936 Primitive Hunters of Australia. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. 

Hamer, J. H. 

1987 Humane Development: Participation and Change among the Sadama of 
Ethiopia. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. 



401 

Hamilton, A. 

1980 Dual Social Systems: Technology, Labor, and Women's Secret Rites in the 
Eastern Western Desert of Australia. Oceania 51:4-19. 

Hardy, B. 

1996 Microwear Analysis of Ethiopian Stone Tools. Paper presented at the 61 SI 
Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, New Orleans. 

Hasen, A. (editor) 

1996a The 1994 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia Results For Southern 
Nations Nationalities and Peoples' Region. Office of Population and Housing 
Census Commission Central Statistical Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

1996b Livestock, Poultry and Beehives Population and Number. Office of 

Population and Housing Census Commission Central Statistical Authority, Addis 
Ababa, Ethiopia. 

1996c The 1994 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia Results For Southern 
Nations Nationalities and Peoples' Region. Vol. I: Part II. Statistical Report on 
Education and Economic Activity. Office of Population and Housing Census 
Commission Central Statistical Authority, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Hawkes, C. 

1954 Archaeological Theory and Method: Some Suggestions from the Old World. 
American Anthropologist 56: 1 55- 1 68. 

Hayden, B. 

1977 Stone Tool Functions in the Western Desert. In Stone Tools as Cultural 
Markers, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 178-188, Australian Institute of 
Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 

1979 Paleolithic Reflections. Humanities Press, New Jersey. 

1987 Use and Misuse: The Analysis of Endscrapers. Lithic Technology 16:65-70. 

1990 The Right Rub: Hide Working in High Ranking Households. In The 
Interpretative Possibilities of Microwear Studies, Societas-Archaeologica 
Upsaliensis, Uppsala, Sweden. 

1993 Investigating Status with Hide Working Use-Wear: A Preliminary Assessment. 
ERAUL 50:119-130. 

Hayden, B., N. Franco, and J. Spafford 

1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Criteria. In Stone Tools: Theoretical 
Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. 9-50, Plenum Press, 
New York. 

Hayden, B., and M. Nelson 

1981 The Use of Chipped Lithic Material in the Contemporary Maya Highlands. 
American Antiquity 46:885-898. 

Hayward, R. 

1998 The Challenge of Omotic. Horn of Africa XVI: 1-30. 



402 

Hedberg, I., and S. Edwards 

1989 Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, vol 3. Addis Ababa University, Uppsala 
Sweden. 

1995 Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea, vol. 7. Addis Ababa University, Uppsala 
Sweden. 

Heizer, R. F. 

1962 Man's Discovery of his Past; Literary Landmarks in Archaeology, Harper and 
Row, New York. 

Henry, D. O. 

1989 Correlations between Reduction Strategies and Settlement Patterns. In 
Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H . 
Odell, pp. 139-212, Westview Press, Boulder. 

Hill, J. M. 

1970 Broken K. Pueblo: Prehistoric Social Organization in the American Southwest. 
Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 18, Tucson. 

Hiller, W. R. 

1948 Hidatsa Soft Tanning of Hides. Minnesota Archaeologists 14:4-1 1 . 

Hodder, I. 

1977 The Distribution of Material Culture Items in the Baringo District, Western 
Kenya. Man 12:239-269. 

1982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

1989 This is Not an Article about Material Culture as Text. Journal of 
Anthropological Archaeology 8:250-269. 

■ 

1990 Style as Historical Quality. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. 
W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 44-51, Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

1991 Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56:7-8. 

Hodder, I., and C. Orton 

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Hodgen, M. T. 

1964 Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. University of 
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 

Hodson, A. 

1929 Journeys from Maji, Southwest Abyssinia. Geographical Journal 73:401-428. 

Hughes, R. E. 

1990 The Gold Hill Site: Evidence for a Prehistoric Socioceremonial System in 
Southwestern Oregon. In Living with the Land: The Indians of Southwest 
Oregon, edited by N. Hannon and R. K. Olmo, pp. 48-55, Southern Oregon 
Historical Society, Medford. 



403 

Holmes, W. H. 

1914 Areas of American Culture Characterization Tentatively Outlined as an Aid in 
the Study of the Antiquities. American Anthropologist 16:413-446. 

1919 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities Part I. The Lithic Industries. 
Washington Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 60, Washington D. C. 

Holmes, D. L. 

1988 The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Badari, Middle Egypt: New Perspectives 
and Inter-regional Relations. World Archaeology 20:70-86. 

Hurcombe, L. M. 

1992 Use Wear Analysis and Obsidian: Theory, Experiments and Results. J. R. 
Collins Publications, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of 
Sheffield, U. K. 

Ingersoll, D., J. Yellen, and W. MacDonald (editors). 

1977 Experimental Archaeology. Columbia University Press, New York. 

Isenberg, C. W., and J. L. Krapf. 

1843 Journals of Their Proceedings in the Kingdom ofShoa. Cass, London. 

Jackson, R. T. 

1972 Land Use and Settlement in Gamu Gofa, Ethiopia. Department of Geography 
Makerere University Kampala Occasional Paper No. 17, Kampala, Uganda. 

1971 Periodic Markets in Southern Ethiopia Institute of British Geographers 
Transactions 53:31-42. 

Jackson, R. T., T. R. Rulvaney, and J. Forster 

1969 Report of the Oxford University Expedition to the Gamu Highlands of 
Southern Ethiopia. Oxford University, Oxford. 

Jelinek, A. J. 

1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and 
Continuity, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 19-33, Academic Press, New York. 

Jensen, E. 

1959 Altvoker Sud-Atheiopiens. Kohlhammer, Verlag. 

Jochim, M. A. 

1976 Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predicative Model. Academic 
Press, New York. 

Jeske, R. 

1989 Economies in Raw Material Use by Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer. In Time, 
Energy, and Stone Tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 34-45, Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge. 

Johnson, J. K. 

1996 Lithic Analysis and Questions of Cultural Complexity: The Maya. In Stone 
Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, pp. 
159-175, Plenum, New York. 



404 

Johnston, C. 

1972 [1844] Travels in Southern Abyssinia through the Country ofAdaal to the 
Kingdom of Shoa. Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, U.K. 

Jones, S. 

1996 Discourses of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past. In Cultural Identity and 
Archaeology, edited by P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, and C. Gamble, pp. 62-80, 
Routledge, London. 

1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Routledge, London. 

Jones, S., and P. Graves-Brown 

1996 Introduction. In Cultural Identity and Archaeology, edited by S. Jones and P. 
Graves-Brown, pp. 1-24, Routledge, London. 

Karsten, D. 

1972 The Economics of Handicrafts in Traditional Societies. Weltforum Verlag, 
Munchen. 

Keeley, L. H. 

1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, 
Chicago. 

1982 Hafting and Retooling: Effects on the Archaeological Record. American 
Antiquity 47:798-809. 

Kehoe, A. 

1990 Points and Lines. In Powers of Observation: Alternative Views in 
Archaeology, edited by S. M. Nelson and A. B. Kehoe, pp. 23-38, 
Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 2, 
Washington D. C. 

Kent, S. 

1987 Method and Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological 
Approach. Columbia University Press, New York. 

1998 Invisible Gender-Invisible Foragers: Southern African Hunter-Gatherer Spatial 
Patterning and the Archaeological Record. In Gender in African Prehistory, 
edited by S. Kent, pp. 39-68. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. 

Kidder, A. V. 

1931 The Pottery of Pecos, vol. I, Papers, South-western Expedition. Yale 
University Press, New Haven. 

Kimball, L. 

1995 An Introduction to Methodological and Substantive Contributions of 
Microwear Analysis. Lithic Technology 19:81-82. 

Kluckholm, C. 

1939 The Place of Theory in Anthropological Studies. Philosophy of Science 6:328- 
344. 

Krieger, A. D. 

1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9:271-288. 



405 



Kroeber, A. L. 

1916 Zuni potsherds. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural 
History 18:7-37. 

Kroeber, A. L., and Kluckhom, C. 

1952 Culture-A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Harvard University, 
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 
47, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Kuhn, S. L. . 

1990 A Geometric Index of Reduction for Unifacial Stone Tools. Journal of 
Archaeological Sciences 17:583-593. 

1992 Blank Form and Reduction as Determinants of Mousterian Scraper 
Morphology. American Antiquity 57:1 15-128. 

Lakew, B. 

1969 Hides and Skins in Ethiopia's Foreign Trade. Unpublished MA thesis, 
Department of Geography, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Lange, W. 

1976 Dialectics of Divine Kingship. African Studies Center Occasional Papers No. 
15, African Studies Center University of California, Los Angeles. 

1982 History of Southern Gonga. Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, Wiesbaden. 

Larick, R. 

1985 Spears, Style, and Time Among Maa-Speaking Pastoralists. Journal of 
Anthropological Archaeology 4:206-220. 

Leach, E. R. 

1973 Concluding Address. In The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in 
Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. 

Leakey, L. S. B. 

1953 Adam's Ancestors. Metheun, London. 

Lee, R. B. 

1979 The IKung San. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Lefebvre, T. 

1846 Voyage en Abyssine. Liraire de la Societe de geographic Paris. 

Lemonnier, P. 

1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. University of Michigan, Ann 
Arbor. 

Leone, M. P. 

1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of 
Perspective in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology: 
Power and Prehistory, edited by D. Christopher, pp. 25-35, Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge. 



406 

Leudtke, B. E. 

1976 Lithic Material Distributions and Interaction Patterns during the Late Woodland 
Period in Michigan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Levine, D. N. 

1974 Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multiethnic Society. The University of 
Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Lewis, H. S. 

1962 Historical Problems in Ethiopian and the Horn of Africa Annals of the New 
York Academy of Sciences 96:504-5 1 1 . 

1974 Neighbors, Friends, and Kinsmen: Principles of Social Organization Among 
the Cushitic-Speaking Peoples of Ethiopia. Ethnology 13:145-157. 

Longacre, W. A. 

1964 Sociological Implications of the Ceramic Analysis. In Chapters in the 
Prehistory of Eastern Arizona II, vol. 55, edited by P. S. Martin, J. Rindaldo, 
W. Longacre, L. Freeman, J. Brown, R. Hevly, and M. Cooley, pp. 155-170, 
Fieldiana (Anthropology), Chicago. 

1970 Archaeology as Anthropology. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 
Vol. 17, University of Arizona, Tucson. 

1981 Kalinga Pottery: an Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Pattern of the Past, edited 
by I. Hodder, G. Isaac, and N. Hammond, pp. 49-66. Cambridge University 
Press, New York. 

Lowie, R. H. 

1928 A Note on Relationship Terminologies. American Anthropologist 30:29-45. 

1935 The Crow Indians. Farrar & Rinehart, New York. 

Marcus, H. G. 

1994 A History of Ethiopia. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Marquardt, W. H., and C. L. Crumley 

1987 Theoretical Issues in the Analysis of Spatial Patterning. In Regional Dynamics: 
Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective, edited by C. L. Crumley and 
W. H. Marquardt, pp. 1-18, Academic Press, New York. 

Mason, O. 

1889 Aboriginal Skin Dressing. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 

Mazel, A. D. 

1989 Gender and the Hunter-Gatherer Archaeological Record: A View from the 
Thukela Basin. South African Archaeological Bulletin 47: 122-126. 

McAnnay, P. A. 

1988 The Effects of Lithic Procurement Strategies on Tool Curation and Recycling. 
Lithic Technology 17:3-1 1. 






407 

McBrearty, S., L. Bishop, T. Plummer, R. Dewar, and N. Conard 

1998 Tools Underfoot: Human Trampling as an Agent of Lithic Artifact Edge 
Modification. American Antiquity 63:108-129. 

McDevitt, K. B. 

1987 Results of Replicative Hide-Working Experiments: The Roles of Raw Material, 
Hide Condition, and Use Wear Patterns in the Determination of Rhyolite End 
Scraper Function. Lithic Technology 19:93-97. 

McNiven, I. J. 

1994 Technological Organization and Settlement in Southwest Tasmania after the 
Glacial Maximum. Antiquity 68:75-82. 

Melak, K. 

1997 Physiological Hemorrhage of Traditional Agroecosystems in Ethiopia. 

Ethiopia. In Broader Perspective, Papers of the XIII International Conference of 
Ethiopian Studies, edited by K. Fukui, E. Kurimoti, and M. Shigeta, pp. 615- 
634, Shokado Book Sellers, Kyoto. 

Mellars, P. 

1970 Some Comments on the Notion of 'Functional Variability' in Stone-Tool 
Assemblages. World Archaeology 3:74-89. 

Melman, M. J. 

1989 Later Quaternary Archaeological Sequences in Northern Tanzania. Ph.D. 
dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

Meltzer, D. J. 

1981 A Study of Style and Function in a Class of Tools. Journal of Field 
Archaeology 8:313-326. 

Merab, P. 

1929 Impressions d' Ethiopie. vol. III. Paris. 

Micheals, G. H. 

1989 Craft Specialization in the Early Postclassic of Colha. Economic Anthropology 
4:139-183. 

Michels, J. W. 

1991 The Axumite Kingdom: A Settlement Archaeology Perspective. In Henok, 
edited by W. Yerkru, pp. 63-78. Ethiopian Research Council, Washington D. C. 

Morgan, L. H. 

1876 Montezuma's Dinner. North American Review 122:256-308. 

Moore, J. 

1994 Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of 
Cladistic Theory. American Anthropologist 96:925-948. 

Mossop, E. E. 

1935 The Journal ofHenrick Jabo Wikar. Van Riebeeck Society, Cape Town. 



408 

Mountford, C. 

1941 An Unrecorded Method of Manufacturing Wooden Implements by Simple 
Stone Tools. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 65:312-316. 

Murdoch, J. 

1988 (1892) Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Smithsonian 
Institution Press, Washington D. C. 

Murdock, G. P. 

1947 Statistical Comparisons of Kinship Systems. American Anthropologists 49:56- 
63. 

Murray, T., and M. J. Walker 

1988 Like What: A Practical Question of Analogical Inference and Archaeological 
Meaningfulness. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7:248-287. 

Nassaney, M. S. 

1996 The Role of Chipped Stone in the Political Economy of Social Ranking. In 
Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. Odell, 
pp. 181-224. Plenum, New York. 

Nelson, E. 

1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington 
D.C. 

Nelson, M. C. 

1991 The Study of Technological Organization. Archaeological Method and Theory 
3:57-100. 

Nelson, N. C. 

1916 Flint Working by Ishi. In Holmes Anniversary Volume: Anthropological 
Essays Presented to William Henry Holmes, edited by F. W. Hodge, pp. 397- 
402, Washington, D. C. 

Nelson, S. M. 

1997 Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. Altamira, Walnut 
Creek. 

Nissen, K., and M. Dittemore 

1974 Ethnographic Data and Wear Pattern Analysis: A Study of Socketed Eskimo 
Scrapers. Tebiwa 17:67-87. 

Odell, G. H. 

1981 The Morphological Express at Function Junction: Searching for Meaning in 
Lithic Tool Types. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:319-342. 

1989 Fitting Analytical Techniques to Prehistoric Problems with Lithic Data. In 
Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. 
Odell, pp. 159- 182, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological 
Association Number 1, Washington D. C. 

1994 Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in North American Midcontinent: Examples 
from Illinois. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:51-73. 



409 

Olmstead, J. 

1972 The Dorze House. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 10:27-36. 

1974a Female Fertility, Social Structure, and the Economy: A Controlled 
Comparison of Two Southern Ethiopian Communities. Ph.D. dissertation, 
Columbia University, New York. 

1974b The Versatile Ensete Plant: Its Use in the Gamu Highland. Journal of 
Ethiopian Studies XII: 147-153. 

1975 Agricultural Land and Social Stratification in the Gamo Highlands of Southern 
Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the First U.S. Conference on Ethiopian Studies, 
edited by H. G. Marcus, pp. 223-234, African Studies Center, Michigan State 
University, East Lansing. 

1997 Woman between Two Worlds: Portrait of an Ethiopian Rural Leader. 
University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 

Orent, A. 

1969 Lineage Structure and The Supernatural: The Kafa of Southwest Ethiopia. 
Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, Boston. 

1970 Dual Organizations in Southern Ethiopia: Anthropological Imagination or 
Ethnographic Fact. Ethnology IX:228-233. 

Orme, B. 

1981 Anthropology for Archaeologists. Cornell University Press, Ithica 

Parry, W. J., and R. L. Kelley 

1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core 
Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 28- 304, Westview 
Press, Boulder. 

Patterson, L. W., and J. B. Sollberger 

1986 Comments on Toth's Right-Handedness Study. Lithic Technology 15:109- 
111. 

Paulitschke, P. 

1888 Harar. Brockhaus, Leipzig. 

Phillipson, D. 

1977 The Later Prehistory of Eastern and Southern Africa. Africana Publishing 
Company, New York. 

Plog, S. 

1978 Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis. Advances in 
Archaeological Method and Theory 1 : 143- 1 82. 

1983. Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142. 

/ 

Pobiner, D. L. 

1999 The Use of Stone Tools to Determine Handedness in Hominids. Current 
Anthropology 40:90-92. 



410 

Pokotylo, D. L., and C. C. Hanks. 

1989 Variability in Curated Lithic Technologies: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study 
from the Mackenzie Basin, Northwest Territories, Canada. In Experiments in 
Lithic Technology, Vol. 528, edited by D. S. Amick and R. P. Mauldin, BAR 
International Series, Cambridge. 

Priest, J. 

1 833 Americana Antiquities and Discoveries in the West. Hoffman and White, 
Albany. 

Rey, C. F. 

1877 The Real Abyssinia. J. B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia. 

Rick, J. W. 

1980 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes. Academic Press, New York. 

1996 Projectile Points, Style, and Social Process in the Pre-ceramic of Central Peru. 
In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights into Human Prehistory, edited by G. H. 
Odell, pp. 245-278. Plenum Press, New York. 

Robertshaw, R. 

1990 A History of African Archaeology: An Introduction. In A History of African 
Archaeology, edited by R. Robertshaw, pp. 3-12, James Currey, London. 

Rogers, R. A. 

1986 Spurred End Scrapers as Diagnostic Paleo-Indian Artifacts: A Distributional 
Analysis on Stream Terraces. American Antiquity 5 1 :388-341 . 

Roth, H. L. 

1899 The Aborigines ofTasmaina. F. King and Sons, Halifax, England. 

Rouse, I. 

1954 On the Use of the Concept of Area Co-Tradition. American Antiquity 19:221- 

225. 

Rudner, J. 

1979 The Use of Stone Artifacts and Pottery among the Khoisan Peoples in Historic 
and Protohistoric Times. South African Archaeological Bulletin 34:3-17. 

Rule, P. A. 

1983 The Development of Regional Subtraditions in Clovis Culture. Ph.D. 
dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe. 

Rule, P., and J. Evans 

1985 The Relationship of Morphological Variation to Hafting Techniques among 
Paleo-Indian Endscrapers at the Shawnee Minisink Site. In Shawnee Minisink: A 
Stratified Paleoindian Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, 
edited by C. W. J. McNett, pp. 21 1-220, Academic Press, Orlando. 

Runnels, C. 

1985 Lithic Studies: Some Theoretical Considerations. Lithic Technology 14:100- 
106. 



411 

Sackett, J. R. 

1967 Method and Theory of Upper Paleolithic Archaeology in Southwestern France. 
In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford, 
pp. 1-84, Aldine, Chicago. 

t 
1973 Style, Function, and Artifact Variability in Paleolithic Assemblages. In The 
Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory, edited by C. Renfrew, pp. 
323-321, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. 

1982a Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological 
Archaeology 1:59-112. 

1982b The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 
42:369-380. 

1985 Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari, A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 
50:154-159. 

1986 Isochrestism and Style: A Clarification. Journal of Anthropological 
Archaeology 5:266-277. 

1989 Statistics, Attributes, and the Dynamics of Burin Typology. In Alternative 
Approaches to Lithic Analysis, Vol. 1, edited by D. O. Henry and G. H. Odell, 
Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Washington D. C. 

1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestism. In The Uses 
of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 32-43, 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Sassaman, K. E. 

1992 Lithic Technology and the Hunter-Gatherer Sexual Division of Labor. North 
American Archaeologist 13:249-262. 

1997 Lithic Technology and the Hunter-Gatherer Sexual Division of Labor. In 
Reader in Gender Archaeology, edited by Kelley Hays-Gilpin and David S. 
Whitley, pp. 159-172, London Press, London. 

Sbacchi, A. 

1985 Ethiopia under Mussolini: Fascism and the Colonial Experience. Zed Books, 
LTD, London. 

Schiffer, M. B. 

1973 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156- 
165. 

1982 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48: 
675-706. 

Schmidt, P. R. 

1983 An Alternative to a Strictly Materialist Perspective: A Review of Historical 
Archaeology, Ethnoarchaeology and Symbolic Approaches in African 
Archaeology. American Antiquity 48:62-75. 



412 

1985 Symboling in Archaeology: Towards A More Humanistic Science. Paper 
Presented at the 51 s ' Annual Meetings of the Society of American Archaeologist. 

1997 Iron Technology in East Africa: Symbolism, Science, and Archaeology. 
Indiana University Press, Bloomington. 

Schmidt, P. R., and T. Patterson 

1995 Making Alternative Histories. SAR Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Shack, W. 

1966 The Gurage: A People of the Enset Culture. Oxford University Press, London. 

Shafer, H. J., and T. R. Hester 

1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. 
American Antiquity 48:519-543. 

Shea, J. J. 

1987 On Accuracy and Relevance in Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Lithic Technology 
16:44-50. 

Shennan, S. J. 

1989 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. In 
Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity, edited by S. J. Shennan, pp. 1- 
32. Routledge, London. 

Shott, M. J. 

1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic 
Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 41:1 5-5 1 . 

1989 Diversity, Organization, and Behavior in the Material Record. Current 
Anthropology 30:283-315. 

1995 How Much is A Scraper? Lithic Technology 20:53-72. 

Siegal, P. E. 

1984 Functional Variability within an Assemblage of Endscrapers. Lithic 
Technology 12:35-51. 

Singer, C. A. 

1984 The 63- kilometer Fit. In Prehistoric Quarries and Lithic Production, edited by 
J. E. Ericson and B. A. Purdy, pp. 35-48, Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

Smith, E. E., and N. Toth 

1990 A Microwear Analysis of Paleo-Indian Socketed Endscrapers from South- 
central Indiana Current Research in the Pleistocene 7:77-79. 

Spencer, B., and F. J. Gillen 

1927 The Arunta: A Study of Stone Age People. MacMillian and Co, London. 

Spector, J. D. 

1991 What This Awl Means: Towards a Feminists Archaeology. In Engendering 
Archaeology, edited by J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. 388-406, W. Blackwell, 
Oxford. 



413 

Sperber, D. 

1972 Paradoxes of Seniority among the Dorze. Proceedings of the First U.S. 
Conference on Ethiopian Studies, 1975, edited by H. G. Marcus, pp. 209-222, 
Center for African Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 

1977 Rethinking Symbolism. Cambridge University Press, New York. 

Stanislawski, M. B. 

1977 Ethnoarchaeology of Hopi and Hopi-Tewa Pottery Making: Styles of 
Learning. In Experimental Archaeology, edited by D. Ingersoll, J. Yellen, and 
W. MacDonald. pp. 378-408, Columbia University, New York. 

Sterner, J., and N. David 

1991 Gender and Caste in the Mandara Highlands: Northeastern Nigeria and 
Northern Cameroon. Ethnology 30:355-369. 

Steward, J. H. 

1955 A Theory of Culture Change, University of Illinois Press, Illinois. 

Stow, G. W. 

1905 The Native Races of South Africa. Swan Sonneschien, London. 

Straube, H. 

1957 Das Dualsystem und die Halaka-Verfassung der Dorse als alte 
Gesellschaftsordnung der Omet-Volker Sud-Atheiopiens. Paideum (Wiesbaden) 
VL342-353. 

1963 Volker Sud-Atheiopiens. vol.3. Kohlhammer, Verlag. 

Strecker, I. 

1990 Political Discourse among the Hamar of Southern Ethiopia. First National 
Conference of Ethiopian Studies, edited by R. Pankhurst, A. Zekaria, and T. 
Beyene, pp. 39-47, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Tamari, T. 

1991 The Development of Caste Systems in West Africa Journal of African History 
32:221-250. 

Tankersley, K. B. 

1990 Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation in the Midwest. In Research in Economic 
Anthropology, edited by K. B. Tankersley and B. L. Isaac, pp. 259-299. JAI 
Press, London. 

Taylor, W. W. 

1948 A Study of Archaeology: Memoir 69 of the American Anthropological 
Association, Washington D. C. 

1972 Old Wine and New Skins: A Contemporary Parable. In Contemporary 
Archaeology, edited by M. Leone, pp. 28-33, Southern Illinois Press, 
Carbondale. 



414 

Teshome, T. 

1984 Material Culture of the Wolaitas. Unpublished MA thesis, Department ot 
Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Administration, Addis Ababa University, 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Thomas, C. 

1 898 Introduction to the Study of North American Archaeology. Clarke, Cincinnati. 

Thompson, R. H. 

1956 The Subjective Element in Archaeological Inference. Southwestern Journal of 

Anthropology 12:327-332. 

Tilley, C. 

1993 Introduction: Interpretation and a Poetics of the Past. In Interpretative 
Archaeology, edited by C. Tilley, pp. 1-29, Berg, Oxford. 

Tindale, N. B. 

1965 Stone Implement Making among the Nakako, Ngadadjara, and Pitjandjara of 
the Great Western Desert. Records of the South Australian Museum ( 1 965): 131- 
164. 

Todd, D. M. 

1977a Herbalists, Diviners, and Shamans in Dimam. Paideuma 23: 189-204. 

1977b Caste in Africa? Africa 47:398-412. 

1978a The Origins of Outcastes in Ethiopia Reflections on an Evolutionary Theory. 
Abbay 9:145-158. 

1978b Aspects of Chiefship in Dimam, South-West Ethiopia. Cahiers d'Etudes 
Africaines 71:311 -332. 

Torrence, R. 

1986 Production and Exchange of Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

Toth, N. 

1985 Archaeological Evidence of Preferential Right-handedness in the Lower and 
Middle Pleistocene, and Its Possible Implications. Journal of Human Evolution 
14:607-614. 

Trigger, B. G. 

1989 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge. 

Tringham, R., G. Copper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman 

1974 Experimentation on the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic 
Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171-196. 

Tudov, A., and L. Plotnicov 

1970 Introduction. In Social Stratification in Africa, edited by A. Tudov and L. 
Plotnicov, pp. 1-30, The Free Press, New York. 



415 

Van Buren, L. (editor) 

1993-4 Ethiopia Political History. New African Yearbook. IC Publications, 

London. 

VanGennep, A. 

1960 The Rites of Passage. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Vaughan, P. C. ._**■■ 

1985 Use Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. The University of Arizona Press, 

Tucson. 

Wadley,L. 

1989 Legacies from the Later Stone Age. South African Archaeological Society 
Goodwin Series 6:42-53. 

Webley, L. 

1990 The Use of Stone Scrapers by Semi-sedentary Pastoralist Groups in 
Namaqualand, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 45:28-32. 

White, J. P., and D. H. Thomas 

1972 What Mean These stones? Ethno-taxonomic Models and Archaeological 
Interpretations in the New Guinea Highlands. In Models in Archaeology, edited 
by D. L. Clarke, pp. 275-308, Methuen & Co., LTD., London. 

White, J. P., N. Modjeska, and I. Hipuya 

1977 Group Definitions and Mental Templates: An Ethnographic Experiment. In 
Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, edited by R. V. S. Wright, pp. 380-390, 
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. 

Wiessner, P. 

1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American 
Antiquity 48:253-276. 

1984 Reconstructing the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the 
Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190-234. 

1985 Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 
50:160-166. 

1989 Style and Changing Relations Between the Individual and Society. In The 
Meaning of Things, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 56-63, Unwin and Hyman, 
London. 

1990 Is There a Unity to Style?. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. 
Conkey and C. Hastorf, pp. 105-1 12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Willey, G. R., and P. Phillips 

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago University Press, 
Chicago. 

Wilmsen, E. N. 

1968 Functional Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 33: 156- 
152. 



416 
1989 Land Filled with Flies. Chicago University Press, Chicago. 

Wilson, G., and M. Wilson 

1954 The Analysis of Social Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 
Wissler, C. 

1923 Man and Culture. Thomas Y. Cromwell Company, New York. 

Wobst, M. 

1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research 
Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C. E. Cleland, pp. 317-342, 
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Wright, R. P. 

1996 Technology, Gender, and Class: A World of Difference in UR III 
Mesopotamia. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by R. Wright, pp. 80-110, 
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 

Wylde, A. B. 

1888 83 to '87 in the Soudan, with an Account of Sir William Hewitt's Mission to 
King John of Abyssinia. Negro Universities Press, New York. 

Wylie, A. 

1982 An Analogy by Any Other Name is Just as Analogical: A Commentary on the 
Gould-Watson Dialogue. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:382-401. 

1985 The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and 
Theory 8:63-111. 

1993 A Proliferation of New Archaeologies. In Archaeological Theory: Who sets the 
Agenda. Edited by N. Yoffe and A. Sherrat, pp. 20-26, Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge. 

Yintso, G. 

1995 TheAri of Southwestern Ethiopia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Administration, Addis 
Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 

Young, D. E., and R. Bonnichsen 

1985 Cognition, Behavior, and Material Culture. In Stone Tool Analysis: Essays in 
Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by M. G. Plew, J. C. Woods, and M. G. 
Pavesic, pp. 91-131, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 

Zihlman, A. 

1997 Woman the Gatherer. In Reader in Gender Archaeology, edited by Kelley 
Hays-Gilpin and David S. Whitley, pp. 91-106, Routledge, London. 









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 

I attended the University of Texas at Austin, where I received a BA (1987) and an 
MA (1993) in Anthropology. During my BA studies in Anthropology at the University of 
Texas, I attended field schools in southern Italy and excavated Neolithic and Classical 
period sites. After graduation (1987-1990), I worked at the Institute of Classical 
Archaeology (UT), and in cultural resource management (CRAM) with Hicks and 
Company in Austin, Texas (1990-1993), focusing on historical archaeology. I entered the 
MA archaeology program at The University of Texas at Austin in 1990 with James 
Denbow (chair), Edwin Wilmsen, and Thomas Hester serving on my committee. My 
master's thesis focused on the analysis of stone tools from sixteen archaeological sites in 
the Kalahari, which suggested early interaction between Khoisan and Bantu peoples. In 
1993, I began my Ph.D. studies at the University of Florida. I was awarded three 
dissertation grants, including Fulbright, National Science Foundation, and Leakey 
Foundation, between 1996 and 1998 to conduct ethnoarchaeological (the study of present 
day material culture to provide models for testing archaeological remains) field work among 
the Gamo hide-workers of southern Ethiopia. In addition, to dissertation grants, I was 
awarded the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences McLaughlin Dissertation Fellowship 
(1999) and the Ruth McQuown Supplementary Scholarship for Women (1999). 

417 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a 
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Steven A. Brandt, Chairman 
Associate Professor of Anthropology 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a 
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 




Peter R. Schmic 

Associate Professor of Anthropology 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a 
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Anita Spring 

Professor of Anthropology 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a 
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Michael Moseley 
Professor of Anthropology 

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a 
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Abraham Goldman 

Associate Professor of Geography 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a 
dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



Kenneth SassamarfV 

Assistant Professor of Anthropology 



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of 
Anthropology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and 
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy. 

May 2000 



Dean, Graduate School 



LD 
1780 

J20^ 












UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 



262 08394 375 2